> sorry, I lost the context. What questions do we have? I might be able > to answer some of them.
Oh, great. Basically the rest of the email you commented the first bit of. In particular, technicalities about easily getting r0 or rN of a .cabal file or whole package. See below. But for you and other esteemed members of this group I have the more fundamental question whether we want to take advantage of revisions, or completely ignore them or be in-between, as we are now on package-plan. Neither me nor Herbert knows your needs as well as you do, we can only observe occasional breakage and wonder > So my question is, do you think it will be useful to encounter that > breakage early on (while updating package-plan), or do you feel it will > introduce unnecessary complexity? > >> Oh, that's shrewd, but my gut-feeling would be to simplify it >> and make it less fragile by deciding to >> * either completely ignore revisions and apply them >> as explicit patches, if needed, > > This is what we already do for the uploaded packages. > >> * or incorporate revisions into our Debian naming scheme >> and then apply the revision changes by the normal >> upstream package upgrade process. > > Since our packaging workflow is based on upstream tarballs, this will be > a little bit harder to be implemented, since there is no tarball for > version foo-1.0r1 which we can download from Hackage. We would have to > download foo-1.0r0 and metadata for foo-1.0r1 and repack. Not > impossible, but it might not worth the trouble.
