From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39575) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hbcXV-0000eL-93 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:06:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hbcXT-0001KQ-8u for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:06:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:51076) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hbcXS-0001Jr-Lb for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:06:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hbcXS-0004Mn-FD for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:06:02 -0400 Subject: bug#35930: haskell Setup.hs-related changes Resent-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: From: Timothy Sample References: <20190527195251.59801-1-rob@vllmrt.net> <875zp97ugs.fsf@gnu.org> <87o9314gxe.fsf@ngyro.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:05:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Robert Vollmert's message of "Thu, 13 Jun 2019 18:20:21 +0200") Message-ID: <87ef3w50jk.fsf@ngyro.com> 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: 35930-done@debbugs.gnu.org Hello, Robert Vollmert writes: >> On 13. Jun 2019, at 17:57, Timothy Sample wrote: >>> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/35930 >>=20 >> The first patch breaks =E2=80=9Cghc-easyplot=E2=80=9D. >>=20 >> I=E2=80=99m currently building some packages to test the other patches, = and if >> everything builds fine, they LGTM with some minor tweaks (which I=E2=80= =99ve >> already made). Should I push it to master or staging? It means >> rebuilding all of our Haskell packages, which is a few hundered >> packages. >>=20 >> Robert, do you know why the first patch doesn=E2=80=99t work? Should I = just >> omit it? > > Yes go head, I thought it worked at some point but am very doubtful > right now. I=E2=80=99ll look into it again, but it=E2=80=99s not a necess= ary part here > I think. Pushed to staging, since ~550 packages is well over the manual=E2=80=99s recommended limit of 300. I omitted the first patch and merged the last two together (doing so is consistent with similar changes in the past). Thanks Robert! -- Tim