"Jason Dagit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 12:33:05 -0500, David Roundy wrote: >>> Thanks, Eric, but I really don't want to drop support for zlib 0.0.4 just >>> yet. There's absolutely no reason to impose this burden on our developers >>> (including myself). >> >> I think the burden here is really very small, far smaller than the time >> it would take for us to go through another laborious debate :-) >> >> I think if either people respond to the poll (Windows using darcs >> hackers likely, of which the only active ones I can think of so far are >> Salvatore and you on Wine) saying they do not object to this move, or if >> nobody responds (which means nobody actually feels strongly about this), >> we should just go ahead. Keep things simple! > > I'm sorry but I didn't see the actual poll so I'm replying to it here :) > > The zilb 0.5 bindings are important to me if I'm going to do any darcs > dev on windows. I already have it installed there where I can build > darcs using cabal.
As the darcs package maintainer for Debian, I have this to report: - zlib 0.4.0 is available in Debian, zlib 0.5.0 is not. - currently I am not using libghc6-zlib-dev; that is, darcs is just talking directly to (the C library) zlib. - Ganesh tells me that "raw" zlib is better than Haskell zlib 0.4.0, so I will continue using it until 0.5.0 becomes available in Debian. Therefore: I have no interest in compatibility with zlib 0.4.0. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
