On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Joachim Breitner <[email protected]> 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.
Towards this end, I have used our autobuilder to create a squeeze backport at deb http://deb.seereason.com/debian squeeze-seereason main deb-src http://deb.seereason.com/debian squeeze-seereason main There will be about 300 packages there when the upload finishes in a few minutes. Most of the packaging is produced using a tool named cabal-debian, so there are a few small packaging differences from the standard packages in sid. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAJN_RF4R=quap1bzbakuxfigtflhuctn68vh0-6ap43hlcr...@mail.gmail.com
