On 2011/1/3 Peter Simons <[email protected]> wrote: > > Maybe I'm being overly simplistic here, but I don't see the problem. > > Well, I'm not sure why this issue appears to be controversial either. > Personally, I suggested to translate that dependency to "parsec>=2.1.0", > but no-one seems to agree with me, so I'm trying to figure out a solution > that we're all happy with.
I perfectly remember agreeing with you on this: I suggested using the convex hull of possible versions instead of only the first or last interval, and even sent a patch doing this, should I file a pull request or commit directly instead ? -- Rémy. _______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
