Am Mon, 4 Jul 2016 17:27:54 +0200 schrieb Sven Bartscher <sven.bartscher@weltraumschlangen.de>: > 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 As it turns out, the problem is not only, that GHC's build system has to be updated, but also that GHC doesn't seem to generate package hashes for the libraries it builds, e.g. The idea of base becomes just "base-4.9.0.0". Does it anyone know, how to get it to generate the hashes again? Regards Sven
Attachment:
pgpIYClJOlXp5.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP