RE: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Hi, Am Sonntag, den 20.05.2012, 16:28 +0100 schrieb Chris Dornan: > [ ] GHC 7.4.1 or 7.4.2? > > -- I'm still tending to sticking with 7.4.1 -- but this is now > lookin' like a horse race. Anyone to weigh in? > > > > 7.4.1-rc1 seems to be solid and I am testing the platform with it. As > i

RE: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Open, New [ ] GLUT 2.1.2.2? I have 2.1.2.2 ready to upload as soon as I get the nod. I am feeling on fairly safe ground where Linux and MacOS are concerned and I am guessing it won’t cause any problem the windows packagers. If I don’t hear otherwise by Monday morning I will go ahead and upload

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Update #2 on outstanding issues: *Open, New* [ ] GLUT 2.1.2.2? -- This would be just like 2.1.2.1 with Chris' one-line change of extra-libraries: glut -- I think we can take it if everyone agrees and he (or Jason) puts it up. * Open, Almost Resolved* [ ] GHC 7.4.1 or 7.4.2? -- I'm s

RE: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On the xhtml-3000.2.1 open question, Open, New … [ ] just-released xhtml-3000.2.1 -- is this stable? good enough? I have been waiting to see if there would be any response to the announcement and there has been none. As this is just a simple addition to the

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Hi, Am Sonntag, den 13.05.2012, 20:27 +0300 schrieb Yitzchak Gale: > I would give a lot of weight to opinions expressed > by downstream packagers on this though. I checked how many packages do not provide a transformers-0.3-compatible version on hackage, and its just a few (mail sent to the maint

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

I wrote: >> 1. Find out exactly which HP packages would need a transformers version >> bump in their cabal files. Mark Lentczner wrote: > None. That is, none of the packages in HP have version constraints on > transformers other than mtl. And none of the version constraints on mtl > exclude 2.1.1.

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Yitzchak Gale wrote: > 1. Find out exactly which HP packages would need a transformers version > bump in their cabal files. > None. That is, none of the packages in HP have version constraints on transformers other than mtl. And none of the version constraints on

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

I wrote: > About transformers: > Version 0.3.0.0... > would require further HP version bumps on all of > those packages. So what we would need done is... And as I wrote that email, I see Joachim is doing that very drill for the mtl version bump. Great! Hope someone will do it for transformers, t

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Mark Lentczner wrote: > [ ] mtl and transformers -- stick with 2.0 & 0.2 or move ahead to 2.1 and > 0.3? >     -- I don't know enough of the issues to make a call here About transformers: Version 0.3.0.0 is designed (by Johan, thanks!) to be backward compatible. So all that is required is a bump

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Hi, Am Samstag, den 12.05.2012, 15:12 -0700 schrieb Mark Lentczner: > [ ] mtl and transformers -- stick with 2.0 & 0.2 or move ahead to 2.1 > and 0.3? > -- I don't know enough of the issues to make a call here looking at mtl only, the following packages packaged in Debian do require mtl <2.1

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Update on outstanding issues: *Open, New* * * [ ] mtl and transformers -- stick with 2.0 & 0.2 or move ahead to 2.1 and 0.3? -- I don't know enough of the issues to make a call here [ ] just-released xhtml-3000.2.1 -- is this stable? good enough? *Open, Almost Resolved* [ ] Should we bu

RE: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

orm-boun...@projects.haskell.org [mailto:haskell-platform-boun...@projects.haskell.org] On Behalf Of Mark Wright Sent: 10 May 2012 08:12 To: Jens Petersen; Joachim Breitner Cc: haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org Subject: Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0 On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:58:02 +0900, Jens Petersen wrote: >

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:58:02 +0900, Jens Petersen wrote: > On 10 May 2012 06:43, Joachim Breitner wrote: > >>    mtl                     2.0.1.0    --> 2.1.1 > > > > I just noticed that many package on hackage do not build with mtl-2.1.1 > > yet, lots of red entries on http://packdeps.haskellers.

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On 10 May 2012 06:43, Joachim Breitner wrote: >>    mtl                     2.0.1.0    --> 2.1.1 > > I just noticed that many package on hackage do not build with mtl-2.1.1 > yet, lots of red entries on http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/mtl Yes, I tend to agree, and by implication the same a

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Hi, Am Samstag, den 05.05.2012, 16:35 -0700 schrieb Mark Lentczner: > I've put together a straw-man list of packages: > >mtl 2.0.1.0--> 2.1.1 > I just noticed that many package on hackage do not build with mtl-2.1.1 yet, lots of red entries on http://packdeps.haskell

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On 9 May 2012 11:48, Mark Lentczner wrote: > I've pushed a branch into the main repo for our work leading up to release. > The branch is called pre-release Awesome. Maybe experts can comment on the "Outstanding issues" you listed in https://github.com/haskell/haskell-platform/blob/pre-release/NO

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 09.05.2012, 16:51 +0900 schrieb Jens Petersen: > On 9 May 2012 16:40, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Debian already ships CGI 3001.1.8.2. Is there a reason why the platform > > would not upgrade to this newest version? > > It came up earlier in the thread: because it depends on

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On 9 May 2012 16:40, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Debian already ships CGI 3001.1.8.2. Is there a reason why the platform > would not upgrade to this newest version? It came up earlier in the thread: because it depends on MonadCatchIO-mtl, which is not part of Platform. > Otherwise chances are high

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Hi, Am Dienstag, den 08.05.2012, 19:48 -0700 schrieb Mark Lentczner: > I've pushed a branch into the main repo for our work leading up to > release. The branch is called pre-release thanks for that, I updated http://people.debian.org/~nomeata/platform.html to show that data (after a syntax fix, s

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

I've pushed a branch into the main repo for our work leading up to release. The branch is called pre-release - Mark ___ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Jens Petersen wrote: > Anyway how about forking haskell-platform on github so we can see your > changes directly? :) > Sorry - I meant to do that. I'll push a branch to the main repo tonight (PDT) that is the work in progress. This also means that we can collabora

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On 6 May 2012 08:35, Mark Lentczner wrote: > I've put together a straw-man list of packages: Thanks Mark! I had been meaning to post a pull request for a while... :) Anyway I just pushed [1] for reference, which also contains basically all your changes I think and a few from the thread, maybe i

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Don Stewart wrote: > That's all you need to do - but it might not happen for this release. Just to be sure I'm understanding: It is acceptable for this code to remain in three auxiliary packages, and therefore for HP to have to ship them, so long as the modules d

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

That's all you need to do - but it might not happen for this release. On Monday, May 7, 2012, Jason Dagit wrote: > > > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Don Stewart > > > wrote: > >> Thanks Mark. >> >> Some comments: >> >> * random: yep, we just move it into the library set. >> * deepseq is in th

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

That's all you need to do - but it might not happen for this release. On Monday, May 7, 2012, Jason Dagit wrote: > > > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Don Stewart > > > wrote: > >> Thanks Mark. >> >> Some comments: >> >> * random: yep, we just move it into the library set. >> * deepseq is in th

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Hi, Am Sonntag, den 06.05.2012, 21:00 -0700 schrieb Jason Dagit: > A few of them are used in other packages by Sven (like OpenAL), but as > far as I can tell OpenAL doesn't actually build anywhere (I only tried > windows/osx). off topic for this discussion, but OpenAL builds fine on a variety of

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Don Stewart wrote: > Thanks Mark. > > Some comments: > > * random: yep, we just move it into the library set. > * deepseq is in the list of supported libs, so we just have to make sure > it is on every system - if it comes with ghc that's ok. > * integer-* aren't p

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

It is the aim of HP to get onto a very predictable schedule. As evidenced by the note at Debian, staying on track is really important. I really want this HP to come out in May, and as that means that we basically have to have candidates ready within the next two weeks (if not one week), I don't see

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Hi, Am Montag, den 07.05.2012, 04:57 +1000 schrieb David Terei: > > I think we already decided in the past that we won't upgrade those > > versions due to those new modules. > > > > [ ] Is GHC 7.4.1 stable enough for a platform release? Do we know of > > any major bugs? > > I'd argue waiting for

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On 6 May 2012 09:41, Johan Tibell wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Mark Lentczner > wrote: >> Outstanding questions about packages in the Platform: >> [ ] mtl will need MonadCatchIO-mtl-0.3.0.4 - do we make that part of the >> platform? > > Is MonadCatchIO sounds? > >> [ ] updating OpenG

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

Thanks Mark. Some comments: * random: yep, we just move it into the library set. * deepseq is in the list of supported libs, so we just have to make sure it is on every system - if it comes with ghc that's ok. * integer-* aren't parts of the platform, so we don't explicitly require them (same wit

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Johan Tibell wrote: > Is MonadCatchIO sounds? > Uhm... eh what? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are pointing out that it is not mtl that needs that package, but cgi. We can hold cgi back to 3001.1.7.4. I think we already decided in the past that

Re: package versions for 2012.2.0.0

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Mark Lentczner wrote: > Outstanding questions about packages in the Platform: > [ ] mtl will need MonadCatchIO-mtl-0.3.0.4 - do we make that part of the > platform? Is MonadCatchIO sounds? > [ ] updating OpenGL and GLUT to recent versions will require including >