Re: hashed-storage vs. mmap
Joachim Breitner <email@example.com> writes:
> [darcs 2.4 wants hashed-storage 0.3.x
> hashed-storage 0.3.x wants mmap 0.4.x
> debian has mmap 0.5.x (too new)]
> We have some options now:
> a) Upload mmap-0.4.1 again, using an epoch bump.
> b) Introduce an haskell-mmap4 source package and libghc6-mmap4-* binary
> packages until hashed-storage uses 0.5.4
> c) Backport the mmap-0.5-compatibility patch from the hashed-storage
> 0.4 series and apply that locally.
> Personally, I prefer c) over b) over a). Trent, you are the darcs
> maintainer, I guess it’s up to you.
I'd like to defer this decision to Petr Rockai, since he'll have the
best understanding of how Darcs and hashed-storage interact and thus
whether (c) is the Right Thing or the Wrong Thing.
My preference is for (c) if it's the Right Thing.
PS: please try to CC anything that needs my immediate attention to me
(firstname.lastname@example.org) -- I read direct email in a tighter loop than