I wasn't quite happy with either haskell-utils' or haskell-devscripts' style of Haskell library packaging.
In my eyes, haskell-utils was just too messy with all those generated files and haskell-devscripts was too monolithic, with a magic dh_haskell call that did all the work. It was a step in the right direction, but I felt that it replicated much of what was done in CDBS and rightly belonged to its domain.
Therefore, I chose to reimplement (most of) the wheel. I discarded most of haskell-devscripts and just used dh_haskell_prep and made a CDBS rule file to take care of the rest.
Here's my complete debian/rules file, using CDBS: #!/usr/bin/make -f include $(CURDIR)/debian/hlibrary.mk
Neat, no? And this should work for any cabalized Haskell library. That's the theory, at least. The rest is mostly controlled by debian/control. This has been successfully tested with haskell-binary (already in unstable) and haskell-hlist.
I know some people wouldn't touch CDBS if they can help it...
On 1/22/08, Kari Pahula kaol@debian.org wrote: [..]
Therefore, I chose to reimplement (most of) the wheel. I discarded
most of haskell-devscripts and just used dh_haskell_prep and made a CDBS rule file to take care of the rest.
Here's my complete debian/rules file, using CDBS: #!/usr/bin/make -f include $(CURDIR)/debian/hlibrary.mk
Neat, no? And this should work for any cabalized Haskell library. That's the theory, at least. The rest is mostly controlled by debian/control. This has been successfully tested with haskell-binary (already in unstable) and haskell-hlist.
Cute! Are you feeding that back to CDBS so that at some point in the future Haskell (Cabal) will be supported natively by CDBS?
/M
Kari Pahula wrote:
I wasn't quite happy with either haskell-utils' or haskell-devscripts' style of Haskell library packaging.
In my eyes, haskell-utils was just too messy with all those generated files and haskell-devscripts was too monolithic, with a magic dh_haskell call that did all the work. It was a step in the right direction, but I felt that it replicated much of what was done in CDBS and rightly belonged to its domain.
Therefore, I chose to reimplement (most of) the wheel. I discarded most of haskell-devscripts and just used dh_haskell_prep and made a CDBS rule file to take care of the rest.
Here's my complete debian/rules file, using CDBS: #!/usr/bin/make -f include $(CURDIR)/debian/hlibrary.mk
Neat, no? And this should work for any cabalized Haskell library. That's the theory, at least. The rest is mostly controlled by debian/control. This has been successfully tested with haskell-binary (already in unstable) and haskell-hlist.
I know some people wouldn't touch CDBS if they can help it...
What's the relation of this and the hbuild.mk file that's in CDBS already?
I can't seem to get hbuild.mk to work at all, not even after dealing with bug #412388[1].
/M
[1]: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=412388
Kari Pahula wrote:
I wasn't quite happy with either haskell-utils' or haskell-devscripts' style of Haskell library packaging.
You don't happen to be sitting on something similar suitable for executables?
/M
debian-haskell@lists.urchin.earth.li
-
Kari Pahula -
Magnus Therning