Em Qua, 2009-02-11 às 09:28 -0600, John Goerzen escreveu: > To that end, there was a discussion on IRC yesterday. I am not a fan of > CDBS in general, and prefer debhelper. The main reason is: in the end, > I am responsible for my package building correctly. If some part of > debhelper isn't doing the right thing, it is pretty trivial to remove it > and do the right thing manually in debian/rules. debhelper scripts are > well-documented and don't call each other. I am not sure that I could > easily replace a small part of a one-line debian/rules. In fact, I'm > pretty sure that I *couldn't*.
After reading this argumentation, I rethought my opinion about having a standard way of packaging haskell libraries. There're some people that like CDBS, there're some people that don't like it and both have good arguments for their position. I don't think we should force someone to use only CDBS, by leaving only dh_haskell_prep and dh_haskell_depends; or to use only dh, by removing dh_haskell, which is useful when using debhelper without dh. So, my opinion is that these three options should be available. My question is, then, if hlibrary should be included in the haskell-devscripts package. I don't think so, cause I think not all users of haskell-devscripts would use hlibrary.mk, but this argument is against the inclusion of the dh module in the package too. So I see three options: haskell-devscripts include dh module and hlibrary.mk haskell-devscripts include the dh module haskell-devscripts include only the debhelper scripts The package available is using the second option, but I tend to like the third option better, which would need the creation of the haskell-devscripts-cdbs and haskell-devscripts-dh package. What do you think? Greetings. -- marcot http://marcot.iaaeee.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-haskell-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
