dh-haskell (Was: Git migration)
> > One day I tried to use `mass-upgrade.sh' and failed. To fight through
> > errors, I had to read source of script, then man page of another dpkg-*
> > tool, rinse and repeat. It is cathedral.
>
> I have not heard of your problems. How can I improve the tools or the
> documentation if I have to assume none else uses these scripts besides
> me!
>
> Also note that the tag.pl and what-to-build.pl are quick hacks to get
> started, not finished work, and I welcome anyone to improve or â??
> probably better â?? rewrite them.
>
> > So I belive that packaging out scripts will force us to write them more
> > newbie-friendly.
>
> Of course newbie-friendlyness is nice, but extra work is not,
> especially if it is forced upon us.
>
> > > Also, if the tools live in the repo, they can find the path to the
> > > packages using $(dirname $0) :-)
> >
> > Little problem. Just introduce something like DHG_PACKAGES_ROOT and
> > set it in your .shellrc.
>
> Possible, but not very user friendly either.
>
> How are these scripts different from test-packages.pl in the package
> -plan repository? If the scripts are tied to the data, I donâ??t see why
> they should be shipped separately. And what would be the point of
> having these scripts in a Debian stable release?
>
> But as always: If someone wants to do the work, he is welcome to.
Of course, I do not propose it to be shipped into stable, but be
buildable with stable. All in all, I am going to do packaging. Probably
I will need your advice to write documentation correctly.
> > Also, I have idea, and even some steps of reimplementation out
> > haskell-devscripts via debhelper
> >
> > ~kaction-guest/public_git/dh-haskell.git
> >
> > Why? Debhelper provides library that implements things, like
> > `substvar',
> > that we reimplement currently with grep and sed. In fact, main logic
> > currently is in Dh_Haskell.sh. Perl may be not the cleanest language
> > ever, but it is general-purpose one, unlike shell. Opinions?
>
> Very nice! I was hoping someone would eventually come along and free us
> from the historically grown mess that we are using.
Glad to hear.
> How would a debian/rules for a package using this look like?
%:
dh $@ --buildsystem=haskell
> Are you trying to make it produce identical binaries? That would be
> good, because it would allow us to rebuild everything with dh-haskell
> and compare the resulting binaries; if they do not differ we can switch
> to dh-haskell.
I am just copying from Sh to perl, little more, so I expect binary
idential.
> Are you going to attend DebConf or DebCamp? Would be a great
> opportunity to work on these issues.
Unfortunately no.
> (I guess this discussion deserves a separate thread from the
> DHG_Packages discussion.)
If you want.
--
Accept: text/plain, text/x-diff
Accept-Language: eo,en,ru
X-Keep-In-CC: yes
Reply to: