On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:50:02AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:39:19PM +0200, Arjan Oosting wrote: > > > But when ghc6 6.4.2 hits unstable, all libghc6-* packages must be > > > rebuilt anyway. > > > That's also why you need to tighten up the existing ghc6 deps. See > > > http://urchin.earth.li/%7Eian/haskell-policy/haskell-policy.html/ch-libraries.html#s-library_impl_deps > > > for details. > > I know, but the Depends are strict enough. And when a new version of ghc6 > > hits unstable haske-http can be bin-NMU-ed. The package is setup that that > > should work. So no need for a new upload (and begging for sponsorship) > > then. > The problem is, with it as-is, you could get unpredictable results. One > platform might have a package that works only with GHC 6.4.1, while the > next has one that works only with 6.4.2, due to building it at different > times. I'm not really comfortable uploading it in this state. Are there auto-generated binary dependencies that reflect this, though? If so, I don't see any reason to worry about the prospect that a package *may* get built against the wrong ghc; if the package is binNMU-safe in the first place, then all it takes to fix this is a binNMU... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature