On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Am Samstag, den 13.02.2010, 16:51 +0000 schrieb Kari Pahula: > > ghc6 (6.12.1-9) unstable; urgency=low > > . > > * Remove /usr/lib/ghc-$(ProjectVersion)/lib/haddock (ie. the internal > > haddock binary that ghc6 used at build time) from the ghc6 package. > > * Install haddock's files from /usr/share/haddock-$VERSION in ghc6 > > package, not ghc6-doc. > > caused, at least on AMD64, a change in the base ABI hash:
Ouch. I didn't think of testing for those since all I did was to change haddock related things. One thing that implicitly changed from -8 to -9 was that the former was built with 6.10.4, the latter with 6.12.1. But with a stage 2 compiler, it shouldn't matter. Perhaps it did. Anyone still have -8 and -9 ghc6 debs for amd64 on their hard drive? I'd like to hear what's the output of http://people.debian.org/~kaol/iface-diff run on those two. > This means we need to do binNMUs, and we need to do them ???blindly??? > because we can not tell from the outside what ABI versions ghc provides. I could remember to check if the interfaces' hashes change from version to version even when there's no specific cause to suspect it. No harm in playing it safe. But I would have needed to do it on the amd64 package to catch this one. I built the i386 packages myself and they were indeed fine, now that I checked them. > We could consider using dh_haskell_provides also for ghc6 and ghc6-prof, > so that they list the ABI is they provide. Any other ideas? I still wish we could get away with just relying on not changing ghc6's ABI in Debian revisions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
