[darcs-users] darcs patch: Import cabalisation: Setup.lhs, darcs.ca... (and 13 more)

Trent W. Buck trentbuck at gmail.com
Mon Oct 20 07:38:31 UTC 2008

Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> writes:

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 15:14:25 -0400, David Roundy wrote:
>> I think this is an overstatement.  I'd still rather keep packaging out of
>> the official darcs repository on the whole.  I know that we do have a
>> darcs.spec.in file in release/, but the debian stuff has been removed

Convention is that debian/ is only included in the source tarball of
"native" Debian packages; and generally "native" Debian packages are
discouraged because they make NMUs harder.

So it's actually more convenient and "debiany" for Darcs to *not* ship
with a debian/ in its main repository.

>> , and
>> in release/ it's out of the way.  Perhaps we could put the darcs.cabal in
>> the same place?
> Well, that would be a bit of an inconvenience to everybody that wants to
> use the Cabal file.  I would prefer we just kept it in the repository
> root.
>> We don't have a gentoo ebuild in the official darcs repository, and I
>> don't see a strong reason why we should add one.  Why is cabal any
>> different?
> I understand that you see Cabal as just a packaging system among others,
> and I would like to propose a slight nuance to add to your view.
> Cabal files exist to make packaging darcs easier: cabal-install,
> MacPorts, Debian, RedHat, ArchLinux, Gentoo, Cygwin all could benefit
> from having a single reference point for our Haskell package dependency
> information.  Providing an official Cabal file makes it easier for a
> diverse group of packagers to install darcs and indirectly makes it
> easier for people to install darcs, which is a very good thing for the
> community.

Debian build dependencies are managed by the debian/control file, and
this file is not allowed to be auto-generated.  In general I'm more
inclined to trust what ./configure says than some other subsidiary build
system that might not be up to date.  Certainly (by analogy) I would
never look at a .spec file to work out what the build dependencies for
Debian should be.

I'm not saying Cabal is without merit, just that for building official
(as opposed to quick-and-dirty personal-use) Debian packages, I don't
see how it would be an improvement over what is there now.

More information about the darcs-users mailing list