[email protected] (Trent W. Buck) writes: >> First of all: anybody have objections to this in principle? > > Not in principle. > > I'm a little nervous about making Darcs 2.3 unavailable for Debian > users, since it already requires a version of the cabal package that > isn't available except in experimental (as part of the GHC 6.10 > package), and haskeline is not available as a Debian package at all. In the worst-case scenario, we can package haskeline ourselves.
> Ultimately that depends on whether Debian 5.0 will be released in the > next six months (before Darcs 2.3) and if so, if we can get GHC 6.10 > into Debian/testing or even Debian/unstable. I definitely hope so. And even if it doesn't, I wouldn't expect darcs 2.3 to get in, unless there's a serious archive thaw. > (It looks like Haskeline works with GHC 6.8, but I don't think any > Debian Developers are interested in producing new GHC 6.8 library > packages right now.) It does, that's what I test with on my laptop. All in all, I don't think that "hackage package foo is missing in distribution bar" is really an important issue to be worrying about. I don't know where the cabal-debian tool by seareason went, but we could probably leverage that as well. Yours, Petr. -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
