From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43178) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hnl4F-0008Ab-9k for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:38:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hnl4E-0002EG-Dk for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:38:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:43992) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hnl4E-0002E6-6X for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:38:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hnl4E-0000vM-0C for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:38:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#36562] downgrading ghc-ansi-terminal Resent-Message-ID: From: Timothy Sample References: <92ADF111-C58E-45B6-B20A-A98EE61838FA@vllmrt.net> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:37:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <92ADF111-C58E-45B6-B20A-A98EE61838FA@vllmrt.net> (Robert Vollmert's message of "Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:51:33 +0200") Message-ID: <87h87ksp60.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: Jacob MacDonald , 36562@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Robert and Jacob, Robert Vollmert writes: > A patch set to downgrade ghc-ansi-terminal to the stackage LTS > version, to have a consistent package set. This also downgrades > the recently added ghc-validation to version 1 from version 1.1. > > The problem with the current situation is that we have some > packages depending on the updated ghc-ansi-terminal 0.9, and > some depending on ghc-ansi-terminal 0.8. By themselves, they > compile, but it=E2=80=99s now impossible to package modules that depend > directly on packages from both sets. I agree. Thanks for keeping an eye on this. > @Jacob: Would ghc-validation version 1 be sufficient for you > purposes? I=E2=80=99ve CC=E2=80=99ed Jacob on this message since they may not be subs= cribed to the list. Jacob, are you okay with this? -- Tim