> Am 05.05.2015 um 16:10 schrieb Joachim Breitner <[email protected]>: > Am Dienstag, den 05.05.2015, 16:02 +0200 schrieb Sven Bartscher: >>> Am 05.05.2015 um 10:38 schrieb Joachim Breitner <[email protected]>: >>> your fix #778987 might have been too tight: Since you have a strict "=" >>> dependency, whenever we have to binNMU libghc-cabal-dev, we also have to >>> do the same to cabal-install, and in the meantime, cabal-install is >>> uninstallable in sid. I think we should try to avoid that. >>> >>> Wouldn’t it be sufficient to have a ">=" dependency on the version it >>> was built with? Possibly even ">= <upstream-part-of-the-version>“? >> >> I guess it doesn’t need to depend on the exact version it was built against. >> I would suggest >>> = <upstream-part-of-the-version> && << <upstream-part-of-the-version>.1 >>> (this .1 is intentional) >> This way cabal-install needs to be rebuilt whenever there is a new upstream >> version of libghc-cabal-dev. >> If we don’t set that upper bound, we risk that libraries (like hgettext) are >> built against newer upstream versions of libghc-cabal-dev than cabal-install, >> which could cause a mismatch between the CLI of cabal-install and that of >> the library. > > sounds ok. Care to prepare a patch?
I can do that next weekend. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
