On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:35:54PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
FTBFS
hdbc
setup: cannot satisfy dependency mtl-any
I don't see how this ever could have built with pbuilder or the like, and from http://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=hdbc it looks like it never did.
Already reported as #422290, as a matter of fact.
Unexpected problems due to pbuilder
haskell-cabal haskell-http hslogger happs haskell-hgl
So these aren't ghc6-related, right?
I don't think so, but I did not have enough time to dig the issues properly...
In order to complete the transition to GHC 6.6.1, at least 48 packages will need a sourceful upload in order to update their Build-Depends field to replace "ghc6 (>= 6.6), ghc6 (<< 6.6+)" with "ghc6 (>= 6.6.1), ghc6 (<< 6.6.1+)".
This can be done in an autmated way, though. (e.g. "debian/rules update-generated-files" will do it for my packages)
*ahem*, I should have looked at it more closely. :)
Now that Debian has an infrastructure to easily schedule unattented package rebuild (binNMU), I tend to think that it would be better if Haskell packages could benefit from it.
I have a (proverbial) button to do a source upload, but I don't (AFAIK) have a button to do a binNMU (or n binNMUs, where there are n arches). I'm pretty sure (based on past experience) that n binNMUs will require more time and effort than 1 source upload.
Being subscribed to debian-release@l.d.o for quite a while now, I have always seen RMs responsive to binNMU requests. The other problem, IMHO, is that _you_ have a button for your own package, but you don't have one for packages maintained by others. Or through the way of NMU, but that really means a lot of work (testing the package correctly, sending diff, etc).
We'll always need to coordinate when we are doing toolchain updates, but I tend to think that if Haskell gets more popular, it will not scale well to break every single Haskell packages at each update.
I would be glad if someone could remember me the reason of the current technical constraints for this limitation in Build-Depends. :)
[...]
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Why most packages currently cointains "ghc6 (>= 6.6), ghc6 (<< 6.6+)" in their Build-Depends, instead of a more straightforward "ghc6 (>= 6.4.2)" (or the first version needed)?
Cheers,