Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 16.07.2014, 13:37 -0700 schrieb David Fox: I don't know whether it is necessary for ghc-doc to conflict with libghc-terminfo-doc and the others - it only conflicts if they are the same version, and there's no good reason to build terminfo for the same version as is built into ghc-doc. It is the general policy to have each package only once in Debian, so when when have terminfo in GHC, we won’t package it separately. Therefore it makes sense to remove a stale libghc-terminfo-doc package, as long as ghc-doc provides the documentation for it (I hope it does). The only exception currently is Cabal, which we need in a higher version for cabal-install’s sake. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
Hi, Am Sonntag, den 13.07.2014, 21:54 -0700 schrieb David Fox: I'm almost certain now that libtinfo-dev should be a dependency of ghc if it exports terminfo. If so, I apologize in advance - and after that nice note you left in the changelog! haskell-terminfo depends on libncurses5-dev, so why do you think it should be libtinfo-dev? Also, what is the problem you are experiencing, and does adding the depends fix it? Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote: Hi, Am Sonntag, den 13.07.2014, 21:54 -0700 schrieb David Fox: I'm almost certain now that libtinfo-dev should be a dependency of ghc if it exports terminfo. If so, I apologize in advance - and after that nice note you left in the changelog! haskell-terminfo depends on libncurses5-dev, so why do you think it should be libtinfo-dev? Also, what is the problem you are experiencing, and does adding the depends fix it? The problem I'm experiencing is something like /usr/bin/ld: -ltinfo not found when linking a package that uses the terminfo cabal library. Adding the dependency does fix this. This is the terminfo library now built into ghc, not the external one (which can't be installed now that ghc conflicts with it.) A dependency on libncurses5-dev would actually be better, I see it depends on (pulls in) libtinfo-dev. -david
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:38 AM, David Fox dds...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote: Hi, Am Sonntag, den 13.07.2014, 21:54 -0700 schrieb David Fox: I'm almost certain now that libtinfo-dev should be a dependency of ghc if it exports terminfo. If so, I apologize in advance - and after that nice note you left in the changelog! haskell-terminfo depends on libncurses5-dev, so why do you think it should be libtinfo-dev? Also, what is the problem you are experiencing, and does adding the depends fix it? The problem I'm experiencing is something like /usr/bin/ld: -ltinfo not found when linking a package that uses the terminfo cabal library. Adding the dependency does fix this. This is the terminfo library now built into ghc, not the external one (which can't be installed now that ghc conflicts with it.) A dependency on libncurses5-dev would actually be better, I see it depends on (pulls in) libtinfo-dev. -david I don't know whether it is necessary for ghc-doc to conflict with libghc-terminfo-doc and the others - it only conflicts if they are the same version, and there's no good reason to build terminfo for the same version as is built into ghc-doc.
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org
wrote:
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 11.07.2014, 13:12 -0700 schrieb David Fox:
Either way works for me, it is just that I'm getting build errors
because our builder decides it needs to build those packages and then,
because the cabal versions are the same, they collide with
the .haddock files in ghc.
patch welcome :-)
I built about 500 different packages with the attached patch. It just
removes terminfo, haskeline, and xhtml from the ignored list in
debian/provided_substvars.
--- old/debian/provided_substvars 2014-06-10 01:47:34.0 -0700
+++ new/debian/provided_substvars 2014-07-12 06:34:38.637057410 -0700
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
open PKG, 'inplace/bin/ghc-pkg list --simple-output |'
or die ghc-pkg list failed: $!;
-my @ignored = ('ghc', 'mtl', 'terminfo', 'haskeline', 'utf8-string', 'xhtml',
'rts', 'stm', 'parallel');
+my @ignored = ('ghc', 'mtl', 'utf8-string', 'rts', 'stm', 'parallel');
my %ignored;
$ignored{$_}++ for @ignored;
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
Hi, Am Sonntag, den 13.07.2014, 07:50 -0700 schrieb David Fox: On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote: Am Freitag, den 11.07.2014, 13:12 -0700 schrieb David Fox: Either way works for me, it is just that I'm getting build errors because our builder decides it needs to build those packages and then, because the cabal versions are the same, they collide with the .haddock files in ghc. patch welcome :-) I built about 500 different packages with the attached patch. It just removes terminfo, haskeline, and xhtml from the ignored list in debian/provided_substvars. I’ll apply it (building right now) and will revisit the question of whether these should be package separately some other time. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote: Hi, Am Sonntag, den 13.07.2014, 07:50 -0700 schrieb David Fox: On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote: Am Freitag, den 11.07.2014, 13:12 -0700 schrieb David Fox: Either way works for me, it is just that I'm getting build errors because our builder decides it needs to build those packages and then, because the cabal versions are the same, they collide with the .haddock files in ghc. patch welcome :-) I built about 500 different packages with the attached patch. It just removes terminfo, haskeline, and xhtml from the ignored list in debian/provided_substvars. I’ll apply it (building right now) and will revisit the question of whether these should be package separately some other time. I'm almost certain now that libtinfo-dev should be a dependency of ghc if it exports terminfo. If so, I apologize in advance - and after that nice note you left in the changelog!
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
Dear David, Am Freitag, den 11.07.2014, 21:37 -0700 schrieb David Fox: I will try to look at this. But it looks like these libraries *should* be included, so the fix is to add to the provides list: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8919 http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/2af4jf/ghc783_is_out/ciufcfc I’m still not convinced, as I wrote in https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8919#comment:16 We need the .so files for the ghc and haddock binaries themselves, but I don’t think we necessarily have to include them as Haskell libraries, and continue to build and ship them as usual. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
Hi, Am Freitag, den 11.07.2014, 06:03 -0700 schrieb David Fox: I believe that these packages should be in the Provides line for the ghc-doc package: libghc-binary-doc libghc-haskeline-doc libghc-terminfo-doc libghc-xhtml-doc ghc-doc contains a .haddock file for each of them. I wonder if we shouldn’t rather not ship these libraries with GHC, and instead package them separately. That way, we can update them independently. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote: Hi, Am Freitag, den 11.07.2014, 06:03 -0700 schrieb David Fox: I believe that these packages should be in the Provides line for the ghc-doc package: libghc-binary-doc libghc-haskeline-doc libghc-terminfo-doc libghc-xhtml-doc ghc-doc contains a .haddock file for each of them. I wonder if we shouldn’t rather not ship these libraries with GHC, and instead package them separately. That way, we can update them independently. It seems to me (other than binary) those libraries are not actually provided by the ghc package, the .haddock files just snuck into the ghc-doc package.
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:42 AM, David Fox dds...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote: Hi, Am Freitag, den 11.07.2014, 06:03 -0700 schrieb David Fox: I believe that these packages should be in the Provides line for the ghc-doc package: libghc-binary-doc libghc-haskeline-doc libghc-terminfo-doc libghc-xhtml-doc ghc-doc contains a .haddock file for each of them. I wonder if we shouldn’t rather not ship these libraries with GHC, and instead package them separately. That way, we can update them independently. It seems to me (other than binary) those libraries are not actually provided by the ghc package, the .haddock files just snuck into the ghc-doc package. Ignore that, I was looking at an old build of ghc.
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote: Hi, Am Freitag, den 11.07.2014, 06:03 -0700 schrieb David Fox: I believe that these packages should be in the Provides line for the ghc-doc package: libghc-binary-doc libghc-haskeline-doc libghc-terminfo-doc libghc-xhtml-doc ghc-doc contains a .haddock file for each of them. I wonder if we shouldn’t rather not ship these libraries with GHC, and instead package them separately. That way, we can update them independently. Either way works for me, it is just that I'm getting build errors because our builder decides it needs to build those packages and then, because the cabal versions are the same, they collide with the .haddock files in ghc.
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
Hi, Am Freitag, den 11.07.2014, 13:12 -0700 schrieb David Fox: Either way works for me, it is just that I'm getting build errors because our builder decides it needs to build those packages and then, because the cabal versions are the same, they collide with the .haddock files in ghc. patch welcome :-) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Four packages missing from ghc-doc Provides line, 7.8.20140710-1
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Joachim Breitner nome...@debian.org wrote: Hi, Am Freitag, den 11.07.2014, 13:12 -0700 schrieb David Fox: Either way works for me, it is just that I'm getting build errors because our builder decides it needs to build those packages and then, because the cabal versions are the same, they collide with the .haddock files in ghc. patch welcome :-) I will try to look at this. But it looks like these libraries *should* be included, so the fix is to add to the provides list: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8919 http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/2af4jf/ghc783_is_out/ciufcfc
