On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:30:10PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 12.12.2012, 12:15 +0100 schrieb Simon Hengel:
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:20:35AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > there really a change to the on-disk format of the .haddock files?
> >
> > Y
Hi Simon,
Am Mittwoch, den 12.12.2012, 12:15 +0100 schrieb Simon Hengel:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:20:35AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > there really a change to the on-disk format of the .haddock files?
>
> Yes, the on-disk format changed, hence the interface version was bumped
> from 21
Hi Joachim,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:20:35AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> there really a change to the on-disk format of the .haddock files?
Yes, the on-disk format changed, hence the interface version was bumped
from 21 to 22. But Haddock can still read files with interface version
21 (se
Dear Ian,
Am Mittwoch, den 12.12.2012, 00:52 + schrieb Ian Lynagh:
> Won't you have to rebuild everything anyway, due to the GHC version
> number in the .hi files changing?
good point; let me add a bit of information about the Debian
infrastructure: There are two ways of rebuilding stuff. Reg
Hi Joachim,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:20:35AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
> I built GHC 7.6.2-rc1 for Debian.
Thanks for testing!
> Provides: haddock, [-haddock-interface-21-] {+haddock-interface-22+}
>
> i.e. upstream has bumped the haddock interface number. I really was not
> expectin
Hi,
I built GHC 7.6.2-rc1 for Debian. Unfortunately, we have this:
Control files of package ghc-haddock: lines which differ (wdiff format)
---
Depends: ghc (= [-7.6.1-3),-] {+7.6.1.20121207-1),+} libc6 (>= 2.11), libffi5
(>= 3.0
