On Monday 29 April 2002 02:47 am, Michael Weber wrote: > * "Shawn P. Garbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-25T13:58-0500]: > > Secondly, The package is an extension to ghc (haskell compiler). It has > > scripts and library files. I've run into the problem in the make file of > > it refering to things like '/usr/lib/ghc-5.02.2/'. > > Asking the maintainer of ghc* was not an option? :)
Oh that would be far to reasonable for my twisted brain... ;-) > > [206]% ghc --numeric-version > 5.02.2 That makes the makefiles a bit cleaner. > > I've seen this coming looooong before, and asked upstream to add this > option :) (Unfortunately, options to print the path to the include > files of the compiler have been ignored...) Cool > Basically, you can't. A while back a limitation of ghc wrt. libraries > has been discovered. In particular, it is only guaranteed that a > library works with the exact version (plus patchlevel) of the compiler > it was compiled with. IOW, if it was compiled with > ghc5-5.02.2-something, the Depends would look like: > > ghc5 (>= 5.02.2), ghc5 (<< 5.02.3) Hmmmmm. Oh well, at least I can make the makefiles adapt, but the package won't. > > The Debian revision _should_ be negligible. At least that's what is > currently believed... Only one way to find out. > > Third, the library also supports a different haskell compiler, nhc98. Is > > it possible to know which alternate package is installed to build the > > correct version of the libraries. Maybe a grep on dpkg output or > > something? > > You have to build them for _all_ compilers (and put each version into > a different package). Okay. No problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
