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

Re: new dependencies for pandoc 1.14

Quoting Joachim Breitner (2015-05-29 00:25:12)
> Am Donnerstag, den 28.05.2015, 17:48 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
>> [sent again to the other (correct?) list]
> definitely correct now :-)
>> Pandoc 1.14 have some new and tightened dependencies:
>>   highlighting-kate >= 0.6 && < 0.7 (0.5.12 is too old)
>>   cmark >= 0.3.3 && < 0.4 (new)
>> Would be really appreciated if someone could update/package those.
> I’d like to follow the Stackage LTS haskell releases, which ship pandoc
> 1.13. Is that something you could live with?

What doe that really mean?  How often is "LTS haskell releases" updated?

I would prefer to not be tied by that.  I can imagine how it probably 
makes sense to generally follow such more conservative pace, and for 
reverse dependencies of Pandoc it might make sense to convince upstream 
author of Pandoc to code more flexibly instead of upgrading them - but 
for Pandoc itself I would really appreciate not being locked down by 
conservative constraints if possible - there's a long range of 
improvements in each new release of Pandoc that I would dearly like 
making available to our users as soon as possible.

> In any case I’d like to get the current Haskell state of affairs in a 
> suitable state for migration to testing before tackling new upgrades.

I agree upgrade to newer upstream release should happen only after 
current release and other packages depending on it has entered testing.

1.14 packaging work has been pushed to master git branch.  It need arise 
to make another packaging release of the earlier upstream release, then 
please ping me about that - I prefer to branch off for that instead of 
more ugly approaches like reverting or messy merging.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: