"Jason Dagit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Trent W. Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In general I'm more inclined to trust what ./configure says than some >> other subsidiary build system that might not be up to date. > > What do you mean by "might not be up to date"? Are you referring to > the case where darcs.cabal exists but cabal isn't used to build darcs?
Precisely; at least where its not used by *most* people. If Cabal was the "blessed" build system then I'd be using its dependency information because cabal would be the thing that complained when I (deliberately) tried to build it in a chroot with no libraries, to find out what it complains about. >> Debian build dependencies are managed by the debian/control file, and >> this file is not allowed to be auto-generated. > > I see. So that could partially explain why Debian is so far behind > Arch in supporting Haskell packages. It's probably as much because Debian has extremely rigorous scrutiny for both new packages (that is, the first time a package enters the main Debian archive) and new developers. Non-developers require sponsorship to upload packages, and it can be very hard to attract the attention of a sponsor for a library package. (It might also be that there's currently a high correlation between Arch users and Haskell library authors, and the authors make sure their own systems work well.) _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
