[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: tf-random id weirdness



Am Mon, 4 Jul 2016 12:21:24 +0200
schrieb Sven Bartscher <sven.bartscher@weltraumschlangen.de>:

> Am Sat, 02 Jul 2016 09:55:04 +0200
> schrieb Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org>:
> 
> > Hi Edward,
> > 
> > we treat it as opaque, but we currently try to match on a precise,
> > predictable length – this seems to be more reliable than just
> > matching on any sequence of characters. It helps, like, you know,
> > types  :-)
> > 
> > But we can easily adjust. You can help us by giving a definite
> > description of how package IDs can look like nowadays, e.g. as a
> > regex.  
> 
> Until we get such a description, I propose we just extract the hash by
> taking everything from the last hyphen to the end of the package id as
> the hash. I pushed the relevant changes to the branch 'short-ids',
> because I still have to test some cases and wanted to give others the
> possibility to object.

When I was was testing if my changes to haskell-devscripts apply to
ghc, I noticed that GHC has its own copies of Dh_haskell.sh and
dh_haskell_provides. Is this really necessary? I think it's really
inconvenient and a dependency on haskell-devscripts would be more
appropriate.

Regards
Sven

> > Am Freitag, den 01.07.2016, 19:46 -0400 schrieb Edward Z. Yang:  
> > > Yeah, we started compressing the IDs so that they take less
> > > length.  Is there something we can do to make things easier
> > > for packagers?  In general, these identifiers are supposed
> > > to be treated as opaque.
> > > 
> > > Edward
> > > 
> > > Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of 2016-07-01 06:16:24
> > > -0400:    
> > > > Hi Edward,
> > > > 
> > > > Am Freitag, den 01.07.2016, 09:54 +0000 schrieb Clint Adams:    
> > > > > When building tf-random with ghc 8, an id of
> > > > > 
> > > > > tf-random-0.5-4z8OJUaXC1FRNfrLPFWAD
> > > > > 
> > > > > is produced.  Since this is the wrong length, this breaks
> > > > > Dh_Haskell.sh .
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can someone explain what's happening and what should be done
> > > > > instead?    
> > > > 
> > > > previously, we (Debian Haskell packagers) could rely on package
> > > > hashes
> > > > to be 32 characters. Has this changed with GHC-8 somehow?  

Attachment: pgp0sVmjdDtqL.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP


Reply to: