[Pkg-haskell-maintainers] Bug#573925: Bug#573925: How should the Haskell maintainers work then?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Hi Marco (and others),

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 07:20:54AM -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:

>Excerpts from Jonas Smedegaard's message of Sex Mar 19 23:19:09 -0300 2010:

>> The cdbs package is maintained in the collab-maint group at Alioth 
>> which means all Debian developers already have write access and 
>> anyone else can request membership of the group as well - just 
>> mention your reason for needing such membership when requesting it: 
>> for helping co-maintain cdbs.
>
>Would it be possible to make a CDBS release immediately when I, for 
>instance, want a change in the haskell snippet to be in the archive, to 
>make it sync with the new release of the dh_haskell* scripts?

Sure. New releases are done as needed - there are no "release cycle" to 
care about or something.

The only thing I can think of is if - as have been the case the last 
weeks - we already have some changes in the pipeline that we want to 
reach testing before we do another release.  In other words: if you want 
a cdbs release with less than 10 days delay then better warn 10 days 
ahead.  But that really is a corner case, and I doubt in reality we 
would be inflexible if such clash of interest really occured :-)


>I'm assuming you're not saying I should include the dh_haskell* scripts 
>in the CDBS package.

Correct. You'd have to discuss with Joey if he feels similar about addon 
debhelper modules.  And if you do, I am curious about his response - he 
is a wise guy and even if we disagree on design principles (I dislike 
how short-form dh7 reinvents make, and he dislikes all of cdbs, I 
guess), I am sure we can learn from his viewpoints :-)


>If this is possible, I see no problem in moving hlibrary.mk to the cdbs 
>package.
>
>> If Haskell is too fast-moving for maintainance with cdbs, then it 
>> might make sense to separate tiny parts into something shipped with 
>> the Haskel tools - similar to how Python ships their competing 
>> python-central and puthon-module tools, which several CDBS snippets 
>> then make use of through a commandline interface.
>
>Are you talking here about Makefiles or dh_* kind of scripts?
>
>Haskell is not too fast moving, but when there's a change needed, we 
>often need it to be applied and released immediately, since there are 
>libraries waiting to be uploaded.

What python-central and python-module does is provide a shell script 
belo /usr/sbin that can be queried about things like "which is the 
default Python version on the currently running system" and "which are 
the possible Python versions currently on this distribution".

I imagine both debhelper dh_* modules and CDBS *.mk snippets can then 
query that shell script to ideally only need to maintain that one script 
when Python packages are upgraded - and only if Python _policy_ changes 
does the modules/snippets need to be restructured.


Does that make sense?

Perhaps if you elaborate on the kind of changes you can envision will be 
needed for Haskell, we can try help come up with a good separation ot 
tools.


Kind regards,

  - Jonas

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-haskell-maintainers/attachments/20100320/380f5ddf/attachment.pgp>