On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:15:48PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Donnerstag, den 08.12.2011, 20:51 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop: > > I'm asking more from the point of view of upstream, rather than Debian > > packaging. I presume that due to the ghc6→ghc migration, doing backports > > for a few simpler packages (not yesod or such) is still not an easy > > task, right? > > > > A good example that I'm thinking about is aeson; it has about 5-6 > > dependencies (I have no idea if these have in turn more dependencies > > which are not in squeeze), so I think it would take some effort but > > would be doable. > > > > Thoughts? > > my thought is that if we do backports, then we should backport the > complete set of haskell packages, including ghc, so the ghc6→ghc > migration should not be a problem; we just do it in backports as well. > > So it is basically a problem of rebuilding everything, i.e. of > manpower. > > Maybe, first someone should script something to rebuild ghc_7-* and > haskell-* on a Debian stable machine and provide an unofficial backport. > If that works out well and user demand is present, then we can consider > an official backport.
[restarting old thread] So, I'm again looking at this problem, as my work project has started depending on newer versions of a few libraries than are available in stable, so if we actually want to provide a backport to squeeze, we need to solve that problem too. I'm a bit split about the entire set as opposed to 5 libs. On one hand, I understand the nicety about nice upgrade paths, but on the other hand I'm not sure how big the effort is for the entire rebuild (as opposed to, again, just ~5 libs). Thoughts? Do you think it's feasible and "cheap" enough to do the entire platform backport? thanks, iustin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
