Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva <[email protected]> writes: > Em Qui, 2009-03-12 às 17:35 +1100, Trent W. Buck escreveu: >> 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,
It turned out to be busted for me, http://bugs.debian.org/520703. > 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. That's a pity; I prefer dh to CDBS. Is CDBS even actively maintained? > 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. Well, we could always fix up the dh integration and drop the CDBS integration :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
