It also seems that libraries bundled with GHC don't receive an package hash at all. What is the motivation behind this? Are they for some reason entirely unneeded now? Can we get them back somehow? Regards Sven Am Fri, 01 Jul 2016 19:46:00 -0400 schrieb "Edward Z. Yang" <ezyang@cs.stanford.edu>: > Yeah, we started compressing the IDs so that they take less > length. Is there something we can do to make things easier > for packagers? In general, these identifiers are supposed > to be treated as opaque. > > Edward > > Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of 2016-07-01 06:16:24 -0400: > > Hi Edward, > > > > Am Freitag, den 01.07.2016, 09:54 +0000 schrieb Clint Adams: > > > When building tf-random with ghc 8, an id of > > > > > > tf-random-0.5-4z8OJUaXC1FRNfrLPFWAD > > > > > > is produced. Since this is the wrong length, this breaks > > > Dh_Haskell.sh . > > > > > > Can someone explain what's happening and what should be done > > > instead? > > > > previously, we (Debian Haskell packagers) could rely on package > > hashes to be 32 characters. Has this changed with GHC-8 somehow? > > > > Greetings, > > Joachim > > >
Attachment:
pgp1zDRFYmpwV.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP