Re: Hackage revisions and the current breakage of https://jenkins.debian.net/view/haskell/job/haskell-package-plan/
> sorry, I lost the context. What questions do we have? I might be able
> to answer some of them.
Oh, great. Basically the rest of the email you commented
the first bit of. In particular, technicalities about easily
getting r0 or rN of a .cabal file or whole package. See below.
But for you and other esteemed members of this group
I have the more fundamental question whether we want
to take advantage of revisions, or completely ignore them
or be in-between, as we are now on package-plan.
Neither me nor Herbert knows your needs as well as you do,
we can only observe occasional breakage and wonder
> So my question is, do you think it will be useful to encounter that
> breakage early on (while updating package-plan), or do you feel it will
> introduce unnecessary complexity?
>
>> Oh, that's shrewd, but my gut-feeling would be to simplify it
>> and make it less fragile by deciding to
>> * either completely ignore revisions and apply them
>> as explicit patches, if needed,
>
> This is what we already do for the uploaded packages.
>
>> * or incorporate revisions into our Debian naming scheme
>> and then apply the revision changes by the normal
>> upstream package upgrade process.
>
> Since our packaging workflow is based on upstream tarballs, this will be
> a little bit harder to be implemented, since there is no tarball for
> version foo-1.0r1 which we can download from Hackage. We would have to
> download foo-1.0r0 and metadata for foo-1.0r1 and repack. Not
> impossible, but it might not worth the trouble.
Reply to: