From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timothy Sample Subject: bug#33922: failing git-annex build Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:48:05 -0500 Message-ID: <87won5u596.fsf@ngyro.com> References: <87h8evvjr2.fsf@kyleam.com> <87bm53gs9w.fsf@elephly.net> <87ftuazoz5.fsf@ngyro.com> <87muo6nwyr.fsf@elephly.net> <87tvid98hc.fsf@ngyro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44838) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gjTlw-0003MH-Dj for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:49:13 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gjTlp-0002RP-1k for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:49:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:32851) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gjTlm-0002Oh-4i for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:49:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gjTlm-0002Se-1c for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:49:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87bm53gs9w.fsf@elephly.net> Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: 33922@debbugs.gnu.org Hi again, Timothy Sample writes: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> >> [...] >> >> The most appropriate line to modify would then be this: >> >> confs =3D map (path ) $ filter (".conf" `isSuffixOf`) fs >> >> where =E2=80=9Cfs=E2=80=9D is the list of FilePath values (strings). I = think you can >> just do this: >> >> confs =3D map (path ) $ filter (".conf" `isSuffixOf`) (sort fs) >> >> because =E2=80=9Cfs=E2=80=9D is of type [FilePath], which is [String], w= hich is sortable >> via =E2=80=9Csort=E2=80=9D as String has an Ord instance. >> >> What do you think? > > I thought about this approach, but I was worried it wouldn=E2=80=99t be s= o easy. > What you suggest looks pretty straight-forward though. I will test > everything with this approach and report back. If it works, I agree > that it is better. The results are in and this seems to do the trick, too. I built GHC and the packages I mentioned before on two different machines, and everything came out identical. Hence, LGTM. -- Tim