Re: hashed-storage vs. mmap

[twb@cybersource.com.au (Trent W. Buck)]

Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org> 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
(trentbuck@gmail.com) -- I read direct email in a tighter loop than
mailing lists.