[debbugs-tracker] bug#36126: closed ([PATCH] Add ghc-validation.)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 02 Jul 2019 17:57:05 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: [bug#36126] [PATCH] Add ghc-validation.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #36126,
regarding [PATCH] Add ghc-validation.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden.)


-- 
36126: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=36126
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PATCH] Add ghc-validation. Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 06:51:52 -0500

Hello all,

The version bump pushes guix refresh over the 300-package line. Given
that and the fact that there are dependencies on older versions in the
tree, would it be better to give the newer version a special name
instead, or did I make the correct choice here?

Guix packages are a new foray for me, so I imagine something will be
wrong. Did my best to split into proper dependency order though, and
ready to touch up.

Cheers,

Jacob.

0004-gnu-ghc-ansi-terminal-Update-to-0.9.1.patch
Description: Text Data

0003-gnu-ghc-ansi-wl-pprint-Use-ghc-ansi-terminal-0.8.patch
Description: Text Data

0002-gnu-Add-ghc-ansi-terminal-0.8.patch
Description: Text Data

0005-gnu-Add-ghc-concurrent-output.patch
Description: Text Data

0001-gnu-Add-ghc-wl-pprint-annotated.patch
Description: Text Data

0006-gnu-Add-ghc-hedgehog.patch
Description: Text Data

0007-gnu-Add-ghc-validation.patch
Description: Text Data

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: [bug#36126] [PATCH] Add ghc-validation.
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Tue, 02 Jul 2019 17:57:05 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> Hello Jacob,
>
> Jacob MacDonald <address@hidden> skribis:
>
> > The version bump pushes guix refresh over the 300-package line. Given
> > that and the fact that there are dependencies on older versions in the
> > tree, would it be better to give the newer version a special name
> > instead, or did I make the correct choice here?
>
> I think you did it right.  :-)
>
> > Guix packages are a new foray for me, so I imagine something will be
> > wrong. Did my best to split into proper dependency order though, and
> > ready to touch up.
>
> I applied all 7 patches to ‘master’ (I added a copyright line for you).
> It’s above the 300-package line as you write, but these packages build
> fairly quickly, so I think it’s OK.
>
> Thanks for the patch set, and apologies for the delay!
>
> Ludo’.
>
>
> --- End Message ---