On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Marco Silva <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi. > > Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of Sex Jan 14 04:43:42 -0200 2011: > (...) > > Am Freitag, den 14.01.2011, 08:55 +1100 schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo: > > > > So I suppose this is an RFH message. > > > > > > /me raises hand > > > > looks like we are heading towards a team-maintained GHC. Well, it is > > worth a try. > > > > Marco, you have already hacked GHC. Can we count on you with this > > maintenance? > > Yes, sure. I like the idea of a team-maintained GHC. This is my first time posting to the list, but I thought I'd jump in to say hi after watching things going on here since I'd be happy to lend a hand where it's useful in maintaining GHC. I've built it a number of times from scratch and am fairly familiar with the debian packaing process (even though I've never officially yet joined as a debian developer). > > > > I can still stick around as a > > > > comaintainer but it's a bit too much for myself alone. What's the > > > > Haskell team's preferred VCS? I prefer darcs myself but I suppose > git > > > > is good too. > > > > > > I prefer darcs over git. > > > > I also think that our current darcs repo scheme (managing only debian/, > > using quilt for patches) is quite sufficient. > > Agreed. > I would also prefer darcs over git for ghc. > > > > > I suppose uploading GHC 7 to unstable is fine already since it won't > > > > replace ghc6 packages due to renaming it to ghc. Just add a ghc6 > > > > pseudopackage after the release. > > > > > > Sounds reasonable. > > > > We will probably have to add such packages also for all libraries. To > > avoid unnecessary often changes to debian/control, we could again employ > > the haskell-dummy source package to generate all the transitional > > packages. > > Also agreed. > > How should we start? > > Kaol, do you have anything already done that is not in ghc6-6.12.1-13? If > yes, > can you put it in a darcs repo in darcs.debian.org/pkg-haskell? > > Is the idea to package ghc 7 somewhat like ghc 6 is packaged right now, or > to > do major changes at once? I think it's time to review some things in > haskell-devscripts too, like the (only =) ) bug in the package: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=586723 . > > Also, there is the problem of the size of the package. I thought about > splitting the haskell packages from the compiler package, generating, for > instance, libghc-base-dev, libghc-containers-dev, libghc-cabal-dev and so > on. > What do you think? > > Greetings. > (...) > -- > marcot > http://marcot.eti.br/ > [Flattr=54498] >
