GNU bug report logs - #36126
[PATCH] Add ghc-validation.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Jacob MacDonald <jaccarmac <at> gmail.com>
Subject: bug#36126: closed (Re: [bug#36126] [PATCH] Add ghc-validation.)
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 15:58:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your bug report

#36126: [PATCH] Add ghc-validation.

which was filed against the guix-patches package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 36126 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
36126: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=36126
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Jacob MacDonald <jaccarmac <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 36126-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#36126] [PATCH] Add ghc-validation.
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 17:57:05 +0200

Hello Jacob,

Jacob MacDonald <jaccarmac <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> The version bump pushes guix refresh over the 300-package line. Given
> that and the fact that there are dependencies on older versions in the
> tree, would it be better to give the newer version a special name
> instead, or did I make the correct choice here?

I think you did it right.  :-)

> Guix packages are a new foray for me, so I imagine something will be
> wrong. Did my best to split into proper dependency order though, and
> ready to touch up.

I applied all 7 patches to ‘master’ (I added a copyright line for you).
It’s above the 300-package line as you write, but these packages build
fairly quickly, so I think it’s OK.

Thanks for the patch set, and apologies for the delay!

Ludo’.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Jacob MacDonald <jaccarmac <at> gmail.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] Add ghc-validation.
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 06:51:52 -0500

[Message part 4 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello all,

The version bump pushes guix refresh over the 300-package line. Given
that and the fact that there are dependencies on older versions in the
tree, would it be better to give the newer version a special name
instead, or did I make the correct choice here?

Guix packages are a new foray for me, so I imagine something will be
wrong. Did my best to split into proper dependency order though, and
ready to touch up.

Cheers,

Jacob.

[0004-gnu-ghc-ansi-terminal-Update-to-0.9.1.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0003-gnu-ghc-ansi-wl-pprint-Use-ghc-ansi-terminal-0.8.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0002-gnu-Add-ghc-ansi-terminal-0.8.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0005-gnu-Add-ghc-concurrent-output.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0001-gnu-Add-ghc-wl-pprint-annotated.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0006-gnu-Add-ghc-hedgehog.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0007-gnu-Add-ghc-validation.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.