Em Qui, 2009-03-12 às 17:35 +1100, Trent W. Buck escreveu: > Magnus Therning <[email protected]> writes: > > I'd recommend starting over, using hlibrary.mk instead. Here's a > > shameless plug for my own blog post: > > http://therning.org/magnus/archives/458 > > For my (non-Haskell library) packages, I have switched from using CDBS > to dh(1), a new feature in debhelper (>= 7). In general I have found > dh(1) makefiles easier to maintain because they have fewer "magic > variables". > > Have you found time to look into the viability of using dh(1) for > Haskell libraries? If so, and you decided against it, would you please > outline the reasons?
There's a dh addon in haskell-devscripts, which I wrote, but hlibrary.mk is being more actively maintained and is compatible with the current policy, while dh_haskell* and the dh addon still install files in old places. At first I thought it was a good idea to have more than one option to build haskell packages, but now I think it'll be difficult to maintain, cause it'll cause double work at each haskell policy change. Greetings. -- marcot http://marcot.iaaeee.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
