Hi,
sorry for asking to CC: debian-haskell, it does not seem to allow mails
from non-subscribers.
Am Sonntag, den 09.03.2008, 23:02 +0100 schrieb Bastian Blank:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 07:42:59PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > haskell libraries have the unfortunate requirement to need exactly the
> > version of dependencies installed that they were built against.
>
> Can you please explain why? And does a rebuild in the same environment
> also break it?
AFAIK the compiler, GHC, does heavy cross-module optimization and
inlining. I’m not fully aware of the technical details, but I was told
by people who hopefully know that we should keep the binary dependencies
strict.
So
> > binary dependencies are fixed (==) to the version that was installed
> > during installation.
>
> Exact version is >> x, << x+1. You mean exact revision.
You are right, sorry. I do mean revision.
> > Currently, we also fix the build-dependencies, to keep the packages in
> > sync across different arches, and do sourceful uploads of all depending
> > package when we upgrade a library. I don’t like this situation, and I’m
> > wondering if we could not do binNMUs to keep the packages in sync.
>
> BinNMUs will only work with loose build-deps.
Exactly, but loose build deps would lead to packages getting out of sync
unless we do binNMUs to fix that. Example:
(Library B depends on A.)
1 New version of A is uploaded
2 B is uninstallable
current situation:
3 New sourceful version of B has to be uploaded manually
4 buildds build new version of B against new version of A
on all platforms (but the uploaders) automatically
what I’d like to have:
3 We notice that B is uninstallable (with some script’s help)
4 binNMUs are schedueled for all archs where the new version
of A is installed
5 buildds build new binary versions
I’m just not sure if point 4 wouldn’t be too much of a burden for the buildds and w-b admins.
> > I’m also guessing that not having strict build-dependencies might make
> > work easier for releasing or security updates, but that’s just guesswork
> > on my side :-)
>
> You are already in touch with security? This is a large problem.
No, I wasn’t aware that is was such a problem. I’ll get in touch with
them in case we have to stick to the strict build-dep situation. With
loose build-deps, there woudn’t be a large problem with security, would
there?
Thanks for your reply,
Joachim
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil