[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack.
From: |
Timothy Sample |
Subject: |
[bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack. |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Feb 2020 10:34:51 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hello again,
Timothy Sample <address@hidden> writes:
> On the other hand, there are probably less than a dozen Haskell
> packages that need flags [...].
Turns out there are thirteen!
> I will make a patch that does this and see what the damages are.
I’ve attached the patch. The name of the keyword is not great, so
suggestions there are welcome. I managed to build all of our Haskell
packages (except for some usual suspects that fail for other reasons).
It’s not so bad, but it’s a bit of a hack.
I’m now wondering why Guix’s treatment of “LIBRARY_PATH” is not just
solving this outright without the need for those flags. Before I
consider pushing the patch, I’m going to answer that question. Ideally,
Guix could do more of what it’s good at: understanding the complete
package graph. :)
-- Tim
0001-build-system-haskell-Add-extra-directories-keyword.patch
Description: Text Data
- [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack., John Soo, 2020/02/07
- [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack., Timothy Sample, 2020/02/10
- [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack., John Soo, 2020/02/13
- [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack., John Soo, 2020/02/13
- [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack., John Soo, 2020/02/13
- [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack., Timothy Sample, 2020/02/13
- [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack., Timothy Sample, 2020/02/15
- [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack., John Soo, 2020/02/19
- [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack., Timothy Sample, 2020/02/19
- [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack.,
Timothy Sample <=