[Replying to the list, in case it was sent to me in private by accident]
Hi Edward,
Am Montag, den 21.07.2014, 23:25 +0100 schrieb Edward Z.Yang:
Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of 2014-07-21 21:06:49 +0100:
maybe a stupid question, but how does the package key relate to the hash
Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of 2014-07-22 08:23:22 +0100:
[Replying to the list, in case it was sent to me in private by accident]
Oops, thanks.
thanks for the explanations, it makes it clear to me.
Do the package key contain the flags used to compile dependencies? In
the
On 22/07/14 08:23, Joachim Breitner wrote:
[Replying to the list, in case it was sent to me in private by accident]
Hi Edward,
Am Montag, den 21.07.2014, 23:25 +0100 schrieb Edward Z.Yang:
Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of 2014-07-21 21:06:49 +0100:
maybe a stupid question, but
On 22/07/14 13:17, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of 2014-07-22 12:27:46 +0100:
(Replying to Edward)
It's not clear to me why identical IPID would imply identical package
key. Can't two instances of a package compiled against different
dependencies still have
Hello all,
As you may have noticed, I've been knocking around GHC and Cabal the
past few weeks. One of the tasks that has been on my list is
essentially reimplementing Philipp Schuster's 2012 GSoC, with a few
small but important architectural differences. Here is a status report
of what is
Hi,
Am Montag, den 21.07.2014, 18:43 +0100 schrieb Edward Z.Yang:
In my copy of GHC and Cabal [1,2], you can now install multiple copies of a
package with differing dependencies to the package database, i.e. q-1.0
compiled against p-1.0, and against p-2.0. The packages in the database
are
