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

[Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva]

Hi Joey.

Excerpts from Jonas Smedegaard's message of Sáb Mar 20 07:58:54 -0300 2010:
(...)
> 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.
(...)
> >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 :-)

We're considering moving the CDBS class hlibrary.mk from haskell-devscripts to
the cdbs package.  In haskell-devscripts there's also some dh_haskell_*
(shell) scripts; do you think they also should move to the debhelper package,
or it's better to keep them in a separate package, as they are now?

Other haskellers: What's your opinion on this?

I think that if we should only move hlibrary.mk outside haskell-devscripts if
the dh_haskell_* scripts also move out, and we can remove the package from the
archive.

If that's not the case, I'd like to ask the cdbs maintainers to help us in
maintaining the code style in sync with the other snippets.

Greetings.
(...)
-- 
marcot
http://wiki.debian.org/MarcoSilva