Re: [CFARM-REQUEST] GHC build bots on CompileFarm?

2012-02-08 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi Laurent, Am Mittwoch, den 08.02.2012, 17:55 +0100 schrieb Laurent GUERBY: > On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 22:34 +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Dear Laurent, > > > > I’m one of the Debian maintainers of the main Haskell compiler GHC. GHC > > itself has little resources to maintain GHC on exotic arc

Re: Taking binary from hackage or GHC?

2012-02-08 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 08.02.2012, 11:24 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > Dear interested parties :-), > > GHC 7.4.1 started to ship and expose the binary library, version > 0.5.0.3. On hackage is binary-0.5.1.0. In Debian, we try to provide one > version of each library, so we have to decide: >

Re: Taking binary from hackage or GHC?

2012-02-08 Thread Ian Lynagh
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 11:24:00AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > GHC 7.4.1 started to ship and expose the binary library, version > 0.5.0.3. On hackage is binary-0.5.1.0. Actually, 7.4.1 comes with 0.5.1.0. The release notes have the wrong version number, unfortunately. > * Use the version

Re: Taking binary from hackage or GHC?

2012-02-08 Thread Duncan Coutts
On 8 February 2012 10:24, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Dear interested parties :-), > > GHC 7.4.1 started to ship and expose the binary library, version > 0.5.0.3. On hackage is binary-0.5.1.0. It was firmly my opinion that shipping and exposing binary in GHC was and is a mistake. Previously it was

Taking binary from hackage or GHC?

2012-02-08 Thread Joachim Breitner
Dear interested parties :-), GHC 7.4.1 started to ship and expose the binary library, version 0.5.0.3. On hackage is binary-0.5.1.0. In Debian, we try to provide one version of each library, so we have to decide: * Use the version provided by GHC and drop the independent binary package (as we ha