> I also don't see why it makes sense to do this for the libraries that happen > to need to come in the ghc6 packages, but not all the other libraries; e.g. I > think the source for mtl is at least as likely to be wanted as the source for > process. But putting a copy of the whole source package in one of the binary > packages feels wrong to me.
Fair enough I guess. I (who originally filed the bug for Ubuntu) wasn't entirely convinced myself that sticking source in binary packages was a good idea. It's a bit inconvenient to have to grab the whole compiler source to get the libraries but not that huge a burden. Though it does beg the question of why there was a ghc6-libsrc package in the first place. A better approach would be to separate the library from the compiler but I don't know how feasible that would be, and certainly (if it's less than trivial) not something I'd contemplate doing just for the convenience of having tidy sources to peruse. -- Peter Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
