On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 10:24 -0800, John Reiser wrote: > On 11/27/2010 12:04 AM, Jens Petersen wrote: > > I have just moved ghc-7.0.1 and a large set > > of Haskell ghc package rebuilds into dist-f15 > > (from dist-f15-ghc). > > > Rebuilds still pending include xmobar, hlint, > > and various libraries (currently with one or less dependents). > > > Testing and feedback of the new packages in rawhide is most welcome > > in bugzilla or mailing-list. > > How can this testing take place when a very long list of dependencies > has not yet appeared in rawhide? A sample (6 of *hundreds*): > > ghc-csv-devel-0.1.2-2.fc15.x86_64 requires ghc = 0:6.12.3 > ghc-csv-devel-0.1.2-2.fc15.x86_64 requires ghc-doc = 0:6.12.3 > ghc-csv-prof-0.1.2-2.fc15.x86_64 requires ghc-prof = 0:6.12.3 > ghc-haskell-src-exts-1.9.0-2.fc14.x86_64 requires libHShaskell98-1.0.1.1-ghc6.12.3.so()(64bit) > ghc-haskell-src-exts-1.9.0-2.fc14.x86_64 requires libHSrandom-1.0.0.2-ghc6.12.3.so()(64bit) > ghc-haskell-src-exts-1.9.0-2.fc14.x86_64 requires libHSfilepath-1.1.0.4-ghc6.12.3.so()(64bit) > > Please explain why such changes are not done in dependency order > (bottom up). Other collections of packages have made similar messes > from time to time. I don't understand the reasoning for top-down > dribbling, particularly when the same subset of packagers is responsible > for the entire suite. Agreed. I really don't see a reason to break so many packages, even if it is 'only Rawhide'. Was there a reason all these rebuilds could not be completed in the tag? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
