[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: Let’s enter experimental

well let’s try. I uploaded ghc-7.6 to experimental, along with an updated haskell-devscripts (with a ghc >= 7.6 bound) and, as a test package, haskell-transformers (with a bound on haskell-devscripts). This should make the autobuilder build everything with only packages from experimental.

I see ghc FTBFS on Alpha in experimental at Debian-Ports. I realise Alpha is not an official architecture so probably falls below your radar, but I wondered, if, nevertheless, you might be happy to take a look at the build log which ends with:

echo 'executablename="/«PKGBUILDDIR»/inplace/lib/ghc- stage2"' >> inplace/bin/ghc-stage2 echo 'datadir="/«PKGBUILDDIR»/inplace/lib"' >> inplace/bin/ghc- stage2 echo 'bindir="/«PKGBUILDDIR»/inplace/bin"' >> inplace/bin/ghc- stage2 echo 'topdir="/«PKGBUILDDIR»/inplace/lib"' >> inplace/bin/ghc- stage2
echo 'pgmgcc="/usr/bin/gcc"'            >> inplace/bin/ghc-stage2
cat ghc/ghc.wrapper               >> inplace/bin/ghc-stage2
chmod +x                               inplace/bin/ghc-stage2
  HC [stage 2] utils/haddock/dist/build/Haddock/GhcUtils.o

    lexical error at character '\n'
make[2]: *** [utils/haddock/dist/build/Haddock/GhcUtils.o] Error 1

Full log is at:

Is this likely to require an easy fix or not? (I have no idea since I don't know anything about haskell.)

I also see a lot of haskell packages coming through into the experimental distribution and on Alpha some have been built with ghc 7.4.1-4 from unstable. Would it be better if I did not upload the built packages and left them sitting in the "built" state until we get a working ghc in experimental so that they can built with ghc 7.6 and I don't end up having to spend lots of time scheduling binNMUs?


Reply to: