GNU bug report logs - #36562
downgrading ghc-ansi-terminal

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Timothy Sample <samplet <at> ngyro.com>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#36562: closed (downgrading  ghc-ansi-terminal)
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 04:00:02 +0000

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

Your message dated Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:58:56 -0400
with message-id <87zhkknw8v.fsf <at> ngyro.com>
and subject line Re: [bug#36562] downgrading ghc-ansi-terminal
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #36562,
regarding downgrading  ghc-ansi-terminal
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
36562: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=36562
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

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

From: Robert Vollmert <rob <at> vllmrt.net>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: downgrading  ghc-ansi-terminal
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:51:33 +0200

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

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

From: Timothy Sample <samplet <at> ngyro.com>
To: Jacob MacDonald <jaccarmac <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 36562-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Robert Vollmert <rob <at> vllmrt.net>
Subject: Re: [bug#36562] downgrading ghc-ansi-terminal
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 23:58:56 -0400

Hi,

Jacob MacDonald <jaccarmac <at> gmail.com> 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

Previous Next

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