On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:20:56PM +0200, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:35:54PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote: > > > > 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).
Lack of testing is another reason binNMUs are a bad solution, incidentally. It would be better to do an untested source NMUs, so we at least know it compiles, than untested binNMUs triggered by the RMs, IMO. > > > 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)? The lower bound (ghc6 (>= 6.6)) is important when updating libraries at around the same time as updating a compiler, as you don't want the new packages building with the old compiler. The upper bound is probably not important. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ debian-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://urchin.earth.li/mailman/listinfo/debian-haskell
