[darcs-users] Poll: Do you need to be able to build darcs from source on GHC 6.6?
Trent W. Buck
trentbuck at gmail.com
Thu Oct 30 00:19:14 UTC 2008
Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> I'd just like to point out (again ;-) ) than it's not that hard to
> support older platforms. The only constraint is that people not squeal
> at the sight of bundled code. The bundling can be done in such a way
> that it's not a maintenance burden, indeed it can remove the need to
> maintain internal equivalents of external libs.
> For example for an external package foo, we could put the latest stable
> version of it in lib/foo and in the .cabal file say something like:
As the Debian packager, including convenience copies of build dependency
libraries in the stable tarballs increases my workload because
- Debian Policy requires that I not use them. If the ./configure
prefers the convenience copies over the ones found on the system, that
means I have to write extra code in debian/rules to force the use of
the system copies.
- Debian Policy requires that all files in the source tarball -- even
libraries that I don't actually compile against -- have their
copyright and license information declared in debian/copyright. This
means that even if "everybody knows libfoo is GPL", I have to audit
the convenience copy to make sure that every significant work (read:
file) in the convenience copy has a clear license declaration to that
effect, and to document any exceptions.
Alternatively, I can create my own stable tarball of darcs by
unpacking the one Eric makes, removing the convenience copies, and
then re-tarring it. But this is fiddly and normally only done when
the upstream tarball contains work that Debian won't or can't
Therefore while I understand the argument for convenience copies, I'd be
obliged if they were kept to a minimum.
More information about the darcs-users