On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 07:46:18PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Things would be easier for everyone if the GHC HEAD would be
> automatically and regularly built on an arm machine. They do have an
> infrastructure for automated builds².
> Is it acceptable use of a Debian machine to do so – after
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:54:06PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> looking at
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=pandoc&arch=armel which
> very conveniently by now lists the builder repsonsible for each builds,
> there is a pattern that the builds fail on ancina, but succeed on t
Hi,
ghc6 provides and conflicts on haddock
ghc6-doc comes from ghc7, and depends on ghc-doc
ghc-doc depends on haddock-interface-16, which comes from ghc-haddock
ghc-haddock provides and conflicts on haddock
haskell-dlist, haskell-bytestring-show, haskell-cereal,
haskell-directory-tree and haske
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 01:11:35PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi Riku,
> > I can retry it once the faster buildd's are idle again. meanwhile, you can
> > ask[1] to install haskell-regex-tdfa build-deps on abel.debian.org, which
> > is a fast(er) armel porterbox.
> I notice that I have access
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:35:04PM +0300, Kari Pahula wrote:
> Please don't remove ghc6 on ia64 from unstable. ghc6 has a
> Build-Depends on ghc6 and the current 6.8.2 on ia64 is sufficient for
> building 6.12.
would dropping ghc6/ia64 from testing be still acceptable? that
would potentially allo
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> The build failure of haskell-regex-compat is strange:
> https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=haskell-regex-compat;ver=0.92-1.1;arch=armel;stamp=1247521981
bugs.debian.org/536473
> And it builds fine on other arches. Something
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 02:28:32PM +0300, Kari Pahula wrote:
> I've just uploaded a new ghc6 version to unstable. All Haskell
> libraries will need to be rebuilt against it. The following Haskell
> libraries were built successfully against 6.10.1, so I'm fairly
> certain that they should just bui
On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 11:22:39PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:00:35PM +0200, Rickard Nilsson wrote:
> > I notice there is a GHC 6.8 package for armel, while 6.10 exists for
> > most other architectures. Is there anything I can do to help getting
&g
