Following up to the list, as it is of general interest.
Am Donnerstag, den 02.10.2008, 18:15 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva:
Op donderdag 02-10-2008 om 21:43 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Joachim Breitner:
BTW, what do you think of my proposal about making haskell dependencies depend on virtual packages that contain a hash of the *.hi files?
I confess at that time I couldn't understand very well what was being discussed, so I didn't followed the thread, assuming that my Debian knowledge was not enough for it. I read it again today, and I think it's a good idea. The only thing I don't get is how the broken packages are going to be rebuild automatically.
By scheduling binNMUs in a semi-automatic fashion: We would a script that lists all packages that need to be re-build, and we pass that information to the guys on debian-release.
I think the main thing that would change in this idea is the haskell-utils package, which I was working on to maintain. I've done a version[0], but maybe it worth to work on a version that already supports this, and apply the changes I've made in this new version.
Actually, this would be a big change in the Haskell package system, so maybe it could be done with the creation of the haskell team, so that we could maintain these packages together. What do you think?
Yes, a packaging team would be useful, but it needs someone to take the lead (e.g. setting up the alioth group, choosing and setting up a VCS etc.)
If we do such a big change, we should also use it to consolidate some of the packaging utilities around. For example, haskell-utils could use the dh scripts from haskell-devscripts where appropriate and drop some code, or maybe one of the two could be abandoned for the other completely.
I still haven’t seen Arjan comment on the idea with the interface hashes: Would you support such a change in the Haskell Packaging Policy?
Greetings, Joachim