Subject: bug#36562: closed (Re: [bug#36562] downgrading ghc-ansi-terminal)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 04:00:03 +0000

Your bug report

#36562: downgrading  ghc-ansi-terminal

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 [email-masked].

-- 
36562: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=36562
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: [bug#36562] downgrading ghc-ansi-terminal
From: Timothy Sample <[email-masked]>
To: Jacob MacDonald <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], Robert Vollmert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:58:56 -0400
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Hi,

Jacob MacDonald <[email-masked]> writes:

>> I’ve CC’ed Jacob on this message since they may not be subscribed to the
>> list.
>
> That is indeed the case.
>
>>> @Jacob: Would ghc-validation version 1 be sufficient for you
>>> purposes?
>
> Glancing at the changelog, it should be. If not, I'll use a custom
> package definition. My use-case is low severity anyway.

Okay.  Thanks Jacob!

I reordered these a bit so that ansi-terminal and its dependencies get
changed in a single commit.  I also split off the removal of the
“Setup.hs” generating phase into its own commit.

They are (finally!) pushed as 1c54c30d9c–91732735f6.

-- Tim

Subject: downgrading ghc-ansi-terminal
From: Robert Vollmert <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:51:33 +0200
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

A patch set to downgrade ghc-ansi-terminal to the stackage LTS
version, to have a consistent package set. This also downgrades
the recently added ghc-validation to version 1 from version 1.1.

The problem with the current situation is that we have some
packages depending on the updated ghc-ansi-terminal 0.9, and
some depending on ghc-ansi-terminal 0.8. By themselves, they
compile, but it’s now impossible to package modules that depend
directly on packages from both sets.

@Jacob: Would ghc-validation version 1 be sufficient for you
purposes?

Cheers
Robert