From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#31319: ghc-case-insensitive: Duplicate 'inputs' field. Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:49:11 -0400 Message-ID: <87a7tka8ko.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41866) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDCx9-0001n6-22 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:51:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDCx4-0002C2-3C for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:51:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:36302) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDCx3-0002Bu-VE for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:51:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fDCx3-0002TE-LR for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:51:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41422) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDCwI-0001XS-U5 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:50:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDCwD-0001Wh-RW for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:50:14 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:55422) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fDCwD-0001Va-Nc for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:50:09 -0400 List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: 31319@debbugs.gnu.org Our 'ghc-case-insensitive' package contains two 'inputs' field initializers. If I'm not mistaken, the first one is being effectively ignored, so 'ghc-hunit' is not actually an input. It would be good to clean this up so that we can start raising errors when duplicate field initializers are present. Mark