Hi Joachim, Em Qui, 2009-02-26 às 18:41 +0000, Joachim Breitner escreveu: > Am Donnerstag, den 26.02.2009, 13:32 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e > Silva: > > Em Qui, 2009-02-26 às 16:15 +0100, Joachim Breitner escreveu: > > > Am Donnerstag, den 26.02.2009, 11:20 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e > > > Silva: > > > > Assunto: ITP: libghc6-extensible-exceptions -- Extensible exceptions for > > > > > > I have looked at this as well, and already stated packaging it, when I > > > noticed that all it does for ghc6.10 is re-exporting Control.Exception > > > as Control.Exception.Extensible. > > > > > > So we do not need this package in Debian (where we only have one > > > compiler) and can just patch each package to use the other module name. > > > > I don't like the idea of patching upstream source, unless it's really > > necessary. In this case, I think it would harm less to have a silly > > package in the Debian context, than to have to patch the upstream > > version, and maintain the patches for each upstream release, of each > > package that depends on extensible-exceptions. > > While I generally agree that modifying upstream source should be > avoided, this patch is just too simple not to apply :-) And not having > another haskell package high in the dependency tree is a good thing, > IMHO.
I'm not very convinced. I'm not trying to convince about the other side, but just to learn: why is it bad to have a silly haskell package high in the dependency tree? > I noticed that you use darcs to track your debian/ dir only. In case > you > are not aware, you can use quilt or cdbs’s simple-patchsys to put your > changes there too. I know about quilt and simple-patchsys. Do they integrate with darcs? Greetings. -- marcot http://marcot.iaaeee.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
