Hi,

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

> I've had an initial look through these now, sorry it's taken so long!

No problem. I was thinking I ought to do some qa and review, myself.

> ghc-utf8-light could do with a better description, something a little
> more informative.

I think I made this better as well as fixing some other descriptions
lacking full sentences.

> The ghc-sourcemap and ghc-mtl-compat tests are disabled, it would be
> good to at least add a comments as to why.

I added a comment for sourcemap. I realized mtl-compat's tests and
haddocks worked just fine so those are re-enabled.

> The ghc-protolude synopsis could potentially be more informative.

I think I added some more commentary there. It's a bit tricky since I
have not used protolude myself so I am not sure what to provide aside
from their stated description.

> I think adding specific versions of dependencies for purescript is OK,
> but only if they're justified, like if the package only builds with that
> version. The justification should also be noted in the purescript
> package description.

Ah, thanks. Would a comment above the dependencies suffice? The packages
won't be searchable since they are not define-public (yet?).


> I don't think it's necessary to go through all the custom versions of
> packages you've added, but it would be good to at least see if there's
> one case where the upstream specification is overly strict, and the
> slightly different version from Guix would work. That at least would
> provide an example of how to override versions going forward.

Ah thanks for the suggestion here. I found one that could be taken from
the existing package in (gnu packages haskell-xyz). The rest seemed to
be either pinned exactly or too strict to take from guix packages.

Thanks for your help and tools!

John