Re: tf-random id weirdness
The "official" reason they don't have hashes is because,
as bundled libraries, they have special status and are thus deified
to not have hashes. (If these IDs are opaque it shouldn't matter,
right?!)
The *real* reason is that I originally tried to give these hashes,
but there were some build system problems and the simplest
solution was to drop them. Unfortunately I didn't write down
exactly what the problem is, which perhaps obligates me to take
a second look. Shout if you'd like me to.
Cheers,
Edward
Excerpts from Sven Bartscher's message of 2016-07-08 05:46:13 -0400:
> 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
> > >
> >
Reply to: