On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 14:14 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote: > On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 04:00:57PM -0700, Duncan Coutts wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 15:50 -0700, Don Stewart wrote: > > > BTW, this is why we cannot ship with the old bytestring fork of 0.9 > > > bumping around in GHC. > > > > That and the not-closing-file-handles bug. > > I believe I've just fixed this, but please let me know if there is more > to it.
Don and I are the maintainers of the bytestring package and we just can't support this ghc fork, it's not practical. For one thing explaining the versionitis to anyone else is just too embarrassing. We also do not have the time to audit it to check that it fixes all the known bugs. We have already published the known best version that we have confidence in and we support. If ghc is to ship any version at all then that is the version that ghc should ship. I'm happy to send the other patch needed to make bytestring not be needed as a boot lib if you and Simon think that's the best approach. If that's no good and we cannot see any good way to transition between two branches of the repo then the only remaining solution is to apply a mega-patch so that at least ghc would be shipping the right contents in the tarballs even if the repo is messed up. Shipping a random old fork cannot be the solution. Duncan _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
