From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55543) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hWvYZ-00017n-Bx for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jun 2019 00:23:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hWvT1-0004NB-4y for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jun 2019 00:18:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:51474) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hWvT0-0004MX-Go for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jun 2019 00:18:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hWvT0-00037S-BX for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Jun 2019 00:18:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#35907] note Resent-Message-ID: References: <20190525201102.14630-1-rob@vllmrt.net> <4E64EFA7-EDBA-4C06-A25E-4600CE49B969@vllmrt.net> From: Ricardo Wurmus In-reply-to: <4E64EFA7-EDBA-4C06-A25E-4600CE49B969@vllmrt.net> Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2019 06:16:52 +0200 Message-ID: <87d0jyj5xn.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Robert Vollmert Cc: 35907@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Robert, > Note that I=E2=80=99m not sure it=E2=80=99s actually a good idea to exclu= de (all of) these packages > from the dependencies: They=E2=80=99re mostly bundled with ghc because th= ey are used in the > ghc build. As such, it might well be that future ghc versions switch out = e.g. > =E2=80=9Cbytestring=E2=80=9D for some alternate data structure, which wou= ld then require changes to > all package definitions that currently silently depend on =E2=80=9Cbytest= ring=E2=80=9D. While this is correct, we cannot seem to remove them from the environment when building packages. If we allow these packages to be added as inputs and these packages are at different versions from what GHC provides we get into trouble. This happened in the past, unfortunately, and it=E2=80=99s hard to debug. > Should I include a patch to remove the explicitly packaged `ghc-text` and= other > packages of this type? Yes, I think this would be good. Thank you for working on this! -- Ricardo