Hi Emanuel, On 14-06-2019 18:07, Ilias Tsitsimpis wrote: > I have uploaded both ghc and happy here, in case you need Emanuele to > verify that the current version of happy fails, whereas the new one > works: > > https://www.iliastsi.net/ghc/ghc_8.4.4+dfsg1-2+armel0_armel.deb > sha256: 5d8dae44d79545aeee34755baa6c51ffe80db8309051978aaa9ac8857d6efde9 > https://www.iliastsi.net/ghc/ghc-doc_8.4.4+dfsg1-2+armel0_all.deb > sha256: bffaf0957deb767d75e251f92dd8a59c6277c5b986241219fbb26ea3400284fa > https://www.iliastsi.net/ghc/ghc-prof_8.4.4+dfsg1-2+armel0_armel.deb > sha256: 8fde49d87ad410ae5fec77ac89af4da11f4a2dd0924f0085a2f5f9c6e93fc09c > https://www.iliastsi.net/ghc/happy_1.19.9-6+armel0_armel.deb > sha256: c560c02e7369c08de18f7151bcb53245a1c7f4ab83e9c07265beef7ca0e24921 Could you please do the check that Ilias proposes? I.e. install the current happy and run it on the example code and see that it fails. Install the package from Ilias and see that it works? > So, it seems that the proposed patch does indeed resolve the issue. I agree with you, however I'd like to see the results of the check by Emanuele. > Unfortunately, I cannot provide any guarantee that it will not introduce > any bugs that weren't there before, but I believe the only way to find > out is to upload a fixed version of GHC on unstable and schedule the > required binNMUs. If all of them succeed, we can then unblock them. Guarantees like that have very little value. We are trying to weight the risk versus the gain. Please go ahead if and when Emanuele reports positive results. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature