On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:35:54PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote: > > FTBFS > > ----- > > > > hdbc > > > > setup: cannot satisfy dependency mtl-any > > I don't see how this ever could have built with pbuilder or the like, > and from > http://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=hdbc > it looks like it never did.
Already reported as #422290, as a matter of fact.
> > Unexpected problems due to pbuilder
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> > haskell-cabal
> > haskell-http
> > hslogger
> > happs
> > haskell-hgl
>
> So these aren't ghc6-related, right?
I don't think so, but I did not have enough time to dig the issues
properly...
> > In order to complete the transition to GHC 6.6.1, at least 48 packages
> > will need a sourceful upload in order to update their Build-Depends
> > field to replace "ghc6 (>= 6.6), ghc6 (<< 6.6+)" with
> > "ghc6 (>= 6.6.1), ghc6 (<< 6.6.1+)".
>
> This can be done in an autmated way, though.
> (e.g. "debian/rules update-generated-files" will do it for my packages)
*ahem*, I should have looked at it more closely. :)
> > Now that Debian has an infrastructure to easily schedule unattented
> > package rebuild (binNMU), I tend to think that it would be better if
> > Haskell packages could benefit from it.
>
> I have a (proverbial) button to do a source upload, but I don't (AFAIK)
> have a button to do a binNMU (or n binNMUs, where there are n arches).
> I'm pretty sure (based on past experience) that n binNMUs will require
> more time and effort than 1 source upload.
Being subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for quite a while now, I have
always seen RMs responsive to binNMU requests. The other problem, IMHO,
is that _you_ have a button for your own package, but you don't have one
for packages maintained by others. Or through the way of NMU, but that
really means a lot of work (testing the package correctly, sending diff,
etc).
We'll always need to coordinate when we are doing toolchain updates, but
I tend to think that if Haskell gets more popular, it will not scale
well to break every single Haskell packages at each update.
> > I would be glad if someone could remember me the reason of the current
> > technical constraints for this limitation in Build-Depends. :)
> [...]
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Why most packages currently cointains
"ghc6 (>= 6.6), ghc6 (<< 6.6+)" in their Build-Depends, instead of a
more straightforward "ghc6 (>= 6.4.2)" (or the first version needed)?
Cheers,
--
Jérémy Bobbio .''`.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism
`. `'`
`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ debian-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://urchin.earth.li/mailman/listinfo/debian-haskell
