Re: Which version of ghc will stretch have?

[Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it>]

Hi,


>or we have to remove packages a bit more aggressively. Packages that
>are still not compatible with 8.0 do likely not have an active enough
>maintainer for our standards.
>
>This in in particular has been fixed.
>
>We should at least start staging in the repo and/or experimental (but
>it is easy to say for me who has been inactive the last few months…
>(besides scheduling binNMUs))
>
>At this point: Thanks a lot Clint for taking the lead lately!


I sent a mail for the llvm-3.8 issue, my proposal is:

- ghc point to 3.8 for arm*
- transition to unstable for stretch
- remove armel for Stretch

what do you think about?
I admit, removing llvm-3.5,3.6,3.7 and keeping only 3.8 and 3.9 for Stretch
is a nice thing, and armel is likely to be removed for Buster if things can't
keep working on that architecture (I remember armel stack being removed
already once)

G.