Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> too much time and effort has been spent in this discussion already. I
> have uploaded version 1:1.13.3-1 to unstable now. I hope this allows us
> to go back to work :-)
Thanks Joachim.
Cheers,
Erik
--
---
Hello,
I have uploaded debian 3.40 to hackage. It:
- no longer depends on Extra
- no longer includes a debian directory in the cabal tarball
- still depends on HaXml 1.13
- jeremy
On Sep 8, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi David,
I wanted to make improvements to hpvt[0] and
Hi,
too much time and effort has been spent in this discussion already. I
have uploaded version 1:1.13.3-1 to unstable now. I hope this allows us
to go back to work :-)
Erik, thx nevertheless for bringing the packaging of HaXml up-to-date!
Greetings,
Joachim
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debia
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:34:12AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Jeremy Shaw wrote:
>
> > If that is true, then I would be happy with leaving the current HaXml
> > upload alone and creating libghc6-haxml13-dev and having packages
> > depend on that if they want the old API.
>
> I also p
Jeremy Shaw wrote:
> If that is true, then I would be happy with leaving the current HaXml
> upload alone and creating libghc6-haxml13-dev and having packages
> depend on that if they want the old API.
I also prefer this option but that would require all apps that currently
have Build-Depends
On Sep 14, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
I’m not the most experienced Haskell programmer, but that does not
sound
too involved to me. It sounds rather like a case of: For each
additional
argument (type or function), I obviously don’t need it, because my
code
works, so fi
Hi,
Am Montag, den 14.09.2009, 14:40 -0500 schrieb Jeremy Shaw:
> I dislike epochs, since we can never get rid of them.
I do agree here.
> Last time I checked, the migration was somewhat involved. The types
> and constructors have an additional argument, so pretty much every
> type signature nee
Well,
I dislike epochs, since we can never get rid of them.
It is my feeling that we are going to need to provide both HaXml 1.13
and 1.20 because many library authors won't bother to upgrade
something that has been working fine for the last 4 years. Last time I
checked, the migration was
Hi,
Am Montag, den 14.09.2009, 21:11 +1000 schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
> > Am Freitag, den 11.09.2009, 15:05 +0100 schrieb Iain Lane:
> > > So I would recommend that we roll back until the new series is
> > > declared stable and rdepends start migrating to the new API. I also
> > > hope that
Hi,
On 14 Sep 2009, at 12:11, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
The obvious
way is just commit 1.13 changes over the top of 1.19 (which is tagged
as 1.19) so that when it comes to go back to 1.19 we can just grab
the tag and tweak a little.
This seems fine. It's just a special case of a new upstream
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 11.09.2009, 15:05 +0100 schrieb Iain Lane:
> > So I would recommend that we roll back until the new series is
> > declared stable and rdepends start migrating to the new API. I also
> > hope that upstream can make this situation more manifest
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 11.09.2009, 15:05 +0100 schrieb Iain Lane:
> So I would recommend that we roll back until the new series is
> declared stable and rdepends start migrating to the new API. I also
> hope that upstream can make this situation more manifest on their
> hackage page - having `c
Hello,
On 11 Sep 2009, at 14:11, John Goerzen wrote:
But the point is: we're here to make life easy for users, so
let's give them the HaXml 1.13 through squeeze and zap it after that.
I may be a bit late to the discussion, but I'm wondering if anything
we have in Debian requires the new HaX
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 11.09.2009, 07:02 +1000 schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
>>> This is good news. But I don't think it really changes much in the
>>> short term. 1.20 will not be backwards compatible with 1.13, and
>>> almost everyone uses the 1.13 interface right n
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 11.09.2009, 17:33 +1000 schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 07:02:23AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> > > This would suggest that we need a HaXmL1.13 and leave the current
> > > HaxMl unchanged.
> >
> > I'm a bit puzzle
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 07:02:23AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> > This would suggest that we need a HaXmL1.13 and leave the current
> > HaxMl unchanged.
>
> I'm a bit puzzled why you want to declare all the current[*] haxml-using
> Debian
> packages buggy.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 07:02:23AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> This would suggest that we need a HaXmL1.13 and leave the current
> HaxMl unchanged.
I'm a bit puzzled why you want to declare all the current[*] haxml-using Debian
packages buggy.
[*] Well, strictly speaking the packages as
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:33:25AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> This is and remains true for C libraries where SO versioning
> takes care of linking. However, for any given library there
> is usually only one -devel library.
That's because most C libraries maintain API compatibility. For l
Simon Horman wrote:
> > I’m reluctant to agree here. Having two separate branches of the same
> > software in Debian should be the exception.
>
> In my experience, having multiple versions of the same software,
> particularly libraries, is quite common in Debian. Perhaps this
> has changed recent
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:14:29AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 11.09.2009, 07:02 +1000 schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
> > > This is good news. But I don't think it really changes much in the
> > > short term. 1.20 will not be backwards compatible with 1.13, and
> > >
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 11.09.2009, 07:02 +1000 schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
> > This is good news. But I don't think it really changes much in the
> > short term. 1.20 will not be backwards compatible with 1.13, and
> > almost everyone uses the 1.13 interface right now. So, we need to keep
> >
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 10.09.2009, 15:28 -0500 schrieb Jeremy Shaw:
> > I wouldn’t call the issue big, but it definitely is an issue: Two
> > packages going through main, proper buildd queuing to be taken care of
> > etc. I’m happy to see Extra in Debian once there is actually code
> > shared
>
Jeremy Shaw wrote:
> This is good news. But I don't think it really changes much in the
> short term. 1.20 will not be backwards compatible with 1.13, and
> almost everyone uses the 1.13 interface right now. So, we need to keep
> both until everyone migrates.
>
> I guess it means we should
On Sep 10, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
I have always stated that HaXml-1.14 - 1.19 are an unstable
development branch. However, in practice, 1.19.x is pretty stable,
and
things have not changed or broken for a long time. I am considering
whether to declare the next revision (
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Good idea. If upstream says 1.19 is stable, maybe I'll change darcs-monitor
> accordingly.
>From Malcolm Wallace, the upstream author:
> I have always stated that HaXml-1.14 - 1.19 are an unstable
> development branch. However, in practice, 1.19.x is pretty st
On Sep 9, 2009, at 3:07 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
The debian directory in Debain is what we use to build -- so it
"works
for us".
Do you use a modified hlibrary.mk, with patches to install binaries in
the correct location? I think the inclusion of that was stalled during
discussion.
Yeah
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 10.09.2009, 12:20 +0300 schrieb Antti-Juhani
Kaijanaho:
> > As such, I think the solution to this issue is to do a package named
> HaXml1.13
> > and keep the HaXml package tracking the latest Hackage version.
>
> I'd recommend against that. There's no reason to continue br
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:59:38PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>>
>>> The HaXML web page at http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/HaXml/ calls 1.19 the
>>> "development version", and links to the page
>> It does not call 1.19 the "develop
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2009, 13:23 -0500 schrieb John Goerzen:
>> Jeremy Shaw wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I can update Debian.Report to build against the newer HaXml now that
>>> it is available in sid.
>> And this is highly annoying. The stable HaXml (1.13)
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:59:38PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>
> > The HaXML web page at http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/HaXml/ calls 1.19 the
> > "development version", and links to the page
>
> It does not call 1.19 the "development version" it calls versions
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> The HaXML web page at http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/HaXml/ calls 1.19 the
> "development version", and links to the page
It does not call 1.19 the "development version" it calls versions >= 1.14
development versions. Since this page is undated it is easy to imagine
t
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 06:12:14PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> I've looked at the HaXml entry on Hackage and I can see no indication that
> 1.19.7 is anything other than the current version. AFAICS, the only thing
> that
> makes 1.19.7 unstable is that this is the version of the package
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 08:31:11PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2009, 13:23 -0500 schrieb John Goerzen:
> > > I have no problem with offering the unstable HaXml in Debian, but only
> > > if the stable HaXml is still here!
>
> Agreed.
I
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 08:31:11PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2009, 13:23 -0500 schrieb John Goerzen:
> > I have no problem with offering the unstable HaXml in Debian, but only
> > if the stable HaXml is still here!
Agreed.
> Anyways, it’s there now. How bad is the im
Jeremy Shaw wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I can update Debian.Report to build against the newer HaXml now that
> it is available in sid.
And this is highly annoying. The stable HaXml (1.13) is now NOT
available in sid. So that means that we can't build any software that
uses the stable HaXml.
I have n
Hi John,
Am Mittwoch, den 09.09.2009, 13:23 -0500 schrieb John Goerzen:
> Jeremy Shaw wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I can update Debian.Report to build against the newer HaXml now that
> > it is available in sid.
>
> And this is highly annoying. The stable HaXml (1.13) is now NOT
> available in s
Hi Jeremy,
Am Dienstag, den 08.09.2009, 19:33 -0500 schrieb Jeremy Shaw:
> I can update Debian.Report to build against the newer HaXml now that
> it is available in sid.
Thanks.
> The debian directory in Debain is what we use to build -- so it "works
> for us".
Do you use a modified hlibrar
Hello,
I can update Debian.Report to build against the newer HaXml now that
it is available in sid.
The debian directory in Debain is what we use to build -- so it "works
for us".
There are other libraries and apps that depend on extra, though I am
not sure if any are headed for sid at
38 matches
Mail list logo
