Hi, Am Sonntag, den 09.03.2008, 17:52 +0000 schrieb Ian Lynagh: > Hi Joachim, > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:26:16PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > > > I’m wondering if this strictness (setting the build-dependencies on > > haskell modules exactly to the version currently installed) is really > > needed. The policy only mentions it is used to keep the architectures in > > sync, but I don’t really understand the problem this is fixing. > > (on the assumption that you agree that the binary packages should have > strict deps:)
Right, I agree with that. > * Pester hppa people or buildd people to get a bin NMU done; highly > inefficient for this to be standard practice. I wonder if the right fix would be to make this more efficient. AFAIK, it’s just a command they run or flag they set to make the buildd re-build it. We could even semi-automatically have a program that tells us what packages need to be binNMUed. I’ll ask the buildd people if this would be acceptable, of if it can be made acceptable (by more automation). Maybe the release team would favour this instead of tight build-dependencies, because it might make stuff easier for them or security or something like that. > * Do an hppa build ourselves on the developer machine; again highly > inefficient, and also there are times when there is no machine > available. > * Do another source upload of X. > * Don't upload X and Y together, but stagger them so that we don't > upload X until Y has built everywhere. This isn't practical when it's > not at all uncommon for Y to take weeks to be built everywhere. I agree that these three are worse than what we have now. > > I would think it saves us some work this way. > > Why's that? I would like to fix a bug in xmonad, but when I build xmonad, I have to manually upload a new xmonad-contrib packages (involving changelog bumps, re-generating control, building, uploading – all routine, but still troulbe and a time waster). If we could (cheaply, or even automatically) do binNMUs, this wouldn’t be such a big deal. > > It’s also nicer to our > > users who try to re-build a certain package on their local machine, > > without having the very exact build-dependencies installed. > > That is true. I suppose we could use >= current rather than == current > for the build-deps. > > This would be essentially the same from the point of view of the > archive, though, in that the buildds will still need to build things in > the same order. Right, might be a good idea if we don’t go the binNMU route. > > We'd need to generate the strict binary-deps on the Cabal package at > build time rather than in "debian/rules update-generated-files". Yes, but that’d be possible? After all, it’s similar to what dpkg-shlibdebs does, right? Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
_______________________________________________ debian-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://urchin.earth.li/mailman/listinfo/debian-haskell
