On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Trent W. Buck <[email protected]> wrote: > Magnus, > > 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?
I've only ever used two ways to package haskell libs, the way described on the Haskell wiki ( http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Creating_Debian_packages_from_Cabal_package ) and with CDBS. Of the two I prefer CDBS by miles. (I've never actually had to set _any_ variables when using CDBS, so I wouldn't know how complicated it is.) For other packages I either do this fairly manually (using dh_* directly) or use CDBS. I don't know enough about the dh(1) magic you speak of to comment on whether it'd be usable for Haskell libs. Any info and examples would be appreciated :-) /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
