From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: heads-up: Haskell updates Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:29:34 -0500 Message-ID: <20180216182934.GA21986@jasmine.lan> References: <87zi4b744f.fsf@elephly.net> <20180214234721.4e9fe198@scratchpost.org> <87a7waodaa.fsf@netris.org> <20180215120404.0a96b628@scratchpost.org> <87fu626yvj.fsf@elephly.net> <20180215180340.52db6ded@scratchpost.org> <20180216162642.106e9c7c@scratchpost.org> <87po54vqug.fsf@fastmail.com> <87y3js6da0.fsf@elephly.net> <87k1vcvm5c.fsf@fastmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59195) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1emklU-000335-Tx for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:29:45 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1emklQ-0004yo-3v for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:29:44 -0500 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:57879) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1emklP-0004tp-Qz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:29:40 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k1vcvm5c.fsf@fastmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Marius Bakke Cc: guix-devel --FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 07:12:47PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: >=20 > > Marius Bakke writes: > > > >> Should we do a new merge to get the GHC patch, or just merge > >> core-updates and let the problem "fix itself" on 'master'? > > > > I=E2=80=99d prefer building GHC and ghc-resourcet first. We don=E2=80= =99t know if this > > patch actually fixes our problems. We should merge master into > > core-updates again. >=20 > As per the discussion on #guix, lfam cherry-picked the GHC patch and a > new and hopefully final Hydra evaluation is underway. The Hydra web interface doesn't show that the previously pending evaluation has been cancelled and a new evaluation started. Can we make sure it's doing the right thing? --FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlqHIwsACgkQJkb6MLrK fwjh3xAAmnvxl5SDzSKR3tmOqMBrMJTUkEpmgzp95BxAracDwmpguTdVruoBa7Kz Eofsq/hSm7BW/ClzJKhdBpaJcUVhJO1MiGnZ9h/KkpM7cOeKt1QWKQH5yvbjXPoS JvHNHcNUVs56KdpV8wtIzj35T+TbffU3mg4Ow7lsk7xfP5FbbgiNnJ1zD5dVh+Wg 9iMfspzgDXKenZiSGw+WQyL+nF0Aad2VdbvWat48xbCXiagqGmiwfq51YxBNQUGn X7371TNGharpdmd/vuCUzY4JEsh7HWmdE2JKeqz9Y4OBrYuRD8WLLYB1sj0YHkFY bPzZzjFkjIpEj/mgN0giKzjnyhjXOhwGG6S28ncOXN1aN1igScUHJl18vRaw/R0H aEWTRq7hcKlqNGgNGJTrrROuY+fmzHDbcRLEPfAKauH0R7NqskeejgRSt0p6XzAt Tl93DGh6KUjYD7GHaiVNN3FjEcoJITBSNtHkZj0g5/CubBi1HWVzkPmltryPa69v cSN5yn7otFQMW8wbrwy5vh8yZLRO4OL7hExB9BpqQ2WRevAQY0D2N2JtdD49tD4a yg2WGskbaA0DyMeo2Wnx3CVfi8k2ysC3dsu1iMjXIQDU98FcH2EIUKa6bS4SmhZu 4ClWmKTCDQauRH3/fWL/nTmJb8Mrh022rVQOWmUFbHx9zWZF+EI= =wcIv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5--