Hi, Am Dienstag, den 08.12.2009, 14:29 -0500 schrieb Gwern Branwen:
I’d not use a one-file-cabal file for the xmonad binary, but just copy that file to the debian package, but that’s an implementation detail on my side and not visible (besides by the fact that the Debian xmonad package will have the version number of the -contrib package it was built with, which probably makes sense anyways).
That's interesting. I was thinking about how to simplify the distribution process; if there's no cabal file, how will people know what this random .hs is or what it needs to be built and what name it should be built under? With a one-file-cabal I reasoned distro people would just have to run their magic cabal2deb tool a third time after xmonad-core and xmonad-contrib and everything would Just Work.
sorry, my wording was unclear: With „I’d not use“ I mean that I would not use it for the Debian package. It still makes sense to have a one-file-cabal package for the users of “cabal install”. The point for Debian is that there is still quite a lot of manual work to be done when creating and updating a package. Simply put, packages are not cheap. This is quite different from the Haskell situation on hackage. Therefore, I’d prefer to build the binary along the library sources. But that is, as I said, an implementation detail and should not affect your proposal in either way. Greetings, Joachim, -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata