<p>In this kind of case I much prefer to patch the cabal file instead. Cblrepo will pick a configuration of dependencies that can be satisfied, however that doesn't happen when running Setup.hs (then the explicit and default flags are required). Patching the cabal file is, IMHO, clearer and more explicit.</p>
<p>/M<br>
On Jul 21, 2012 9:54 PM, "Fabio Riga" <<a href="mailto:rifabio@gmail.com">rifabio@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi Magnus,<br>
><br>
> 2012/7/11 Magnus Therning <<a href="mailto:magnus@therning.org">magnus@therning.org</a>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> The latest version of blaze-html either requires a few other updates,<br>
>> or breaks other packages at the moment. I can't remember which it is,<br>
>> but you can easily see check by attempting to add it using `cblrepo`.<br>
>> Settling for an older version of hakyll is all right for the moment.<br>
><br>
> <br>
> Updating of blaze-html was blocked by persistent and pandoc. Anyway both provide a flag to switch to newer blaze-html so a small patch to PKGBUILDs permits the update.<br>
><br>
> If it's ok, please update with my pull request. I've compiled the packages (also bumped packages), if you don't want to recompile. They are here:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://archhaskell.mynerdside.com/haskell/i686/">http://archhaskell.mynerdside.com/haskell/i686/</a><br>
> <a href="http://archhaskell.mynerdside.com/haskell/x86_64/">http://archhaskell.mynerdside.com/haskell/x86_64/</a><br>
><br>
> Now I'm updateting the "extra" repository. Many packages here depends on blaze-html.</p>
<p> In this kind of case I much prefer to patch the cabal file instead. Cblrepo will pick a configuration of dependencies that can be satisfied, however that doesn't happen when running Setup.hs (then the explicit and default flags are required to result in a satisfiable configuration). Patching the cabal file is, IMHO, clearer and more explicit.</p>
<p>/M</p>