Re: Please merge wip-haskell-updates (Re: [bug#36807] remove obsolete broken haskell packages)

[Timothy Sample <samplet@ngyro.com>]

Hi Robert,

Robert Vollmert <rob@vllmrt.net> writes:

> Hi all, Timothy,
>
> On 25. Jul 2019, at 15:29, Timothy Sample <samplet@ngyro.com> wrote:
>> Other than that, LGTM.  Thanks!  (Do you have commit access now or
>> should I push these?)
>
> I do have commit access now, but for the moment I’m keeping to the
> branch wip-haskell-updates.

OK.  I thought that might be the case.  Thanks for letting me know.

> Thus, I’d ask you (or someone) to merge that (or the parts you deem
> appropriate).

Cool!  I’m in the process of looking everything over.  In the meantime,
I have some early questions and comments.

> I’ve incorporated your comments, and removed
> ghc-packedstring. In addition, the branch incorporates some other
> patchsets:
>
> #36493: updating GHC-included haskell dependencies (this one is already
>         in core-updates)

I think it makes sense to wait for the core-updates merge (which
shouldn’t be too far out).

> #36562: downgrade ansi-terminal to be compatible with the package set

I’ve reordered these changes a bit, and they are now ready to go.

> #36663: adding elm compiler dependencies (just a few extra ghc
> packages)

These commits seem to be in the wrong order.  I think I can untangle
them, though.

> #36692: GHC version 8.6.5 (just as a package for now, not used to build
>         anything)

I made some bigger changes here.  Mostly, I made use of
“substitute-keyword-arguments” to reuse more code from “ghc-8.4”.

Why do you use “patch” instead of “substitute*” to disable the failing
tests?  I see from your previous patches that you used to do it with
“substitute*”.

> #36807: this bug report, removing three deprecated packages

Since we already had a back-and-forth for these, they’re almost
certainly fine.

> no ticket: Skip tests for three Haskell packages that fail on i686 only
>         (and seem harmless): ghc-trifecta, ghc-yaml, ghc-libmpd-haskell.

This seems reasonable to me, though I suppose it would be better to only
skip them when building for i686.  It looks like we only do this
rarely (e.g., the “icu4c” package), so maybe it’s not a big deal.

Is there any more info about “ghc-trifecta”?  The other two have nice
comments that tell me that upstream is aware of the problem, and that it
might be fixed in the future.

Thanks for putting this branch together!


-- Tim