<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
On 12/23/2011 06:29 PM, Fabio Riga wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFT3WeAEn0fdX6qJ3QPSJm014rX=tAcehcdQUHPE2yyPW0GgtA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">2011/12/23 Bernardo Barros <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bernardobarros2@gmail.com">bernardobarros2@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Why can't we just update to ghc 7.0.4 for now? Nothing will
break,<br>
look at the bugfixes:<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Actually <i>everything</i> will break: every time we
update ghc, we need to recompile every package depending on it
(i.e. every haskell package). No matter what version we
upgrade to.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
BTW Fedora is doing a better job with Haskell then Arch now.
they<br>
updated to 7.0.4 and are supporting a lot more packages. And
now we<br>
are dropping packages.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We are here to make Arch a better distro for Haskell.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I think haskell packages are indeed a bit trickier then normal<br>
c/c++/python/etc libraries and packages, since their
dependencies<br>
seems to be much stronger. And keep in mind "rolling release"
does not<br>
mean "unstable" or "testing", it just means that we don't have<br>
releases but the system must always work and must be stable.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>... with the last stable version available.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
It we are going to be a "experimental" with 7.2.2 (which I
think it's<br>
a mistake) we have to have a mechanism to ensure that at least
a set<br>
of important packages used in production will never break,
that there<br>
are quite a few of them.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That's exactly what cblrepo is used for? Am I wrong?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It seems to me that the meaning of "testing" in 7.2 branch
is about "new features that could change in 7.4"; it's not
about "breaking 7.0 branch". What works with 7.0.4 should
works as well with 7.2 (and actually do!).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Look at this: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.2.2/html/users_guide/release-7-2-1.html">http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/7.2.2/html/users_guide/release-7-2-1.html</a>.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
I made a testing repo and updated to ghc-7.2.2 some 100
packages, and everything looks okay. For me it's the same, we
can use both 7.2.2 or 7.0.4. During Christmas holiday I have
enough time to try and build most of packages for one of
those. If Magnus agree.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Witch version should I use? For now we have 1 vote for
7.2.2 (Magnus) and 1 for 7.0.4 (Bernardo).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Fabio</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Well, if we want to get leksah working it requires haddock which now
depends on 7.2. I'm not sure how many use leksah, but that's a vote
in favor of 7.2.<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
</body>
</html>