GNU bug report logs -
#38593
Remove invalid library directories from some haskell packages
Previous Next
Reported by: John Soo <jsoo1 <at> asu.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:39:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Done: John Soo <jsoo1 <at> asu.edu>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 38593 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 38593 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#38593
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:39:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
John Soo <jsoo1 <at> asu.edu>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
.
(Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:39:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi all,
When compiling with ghc, I have been getting the message that the following
packages have invalid package databases. These patches remove the library
from the output, keeping the executables.
There may be other packages with this problem but I have not done an audit.
- John
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
[0001-gnu-ghc-hpack-Remove-invalid-lib-directory.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0003-gnu-hoogle-Remove-invalid-library.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0002-gnu-hlint-Remove-invalid-lib-directory.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#38593
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:43:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 38593 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
I forgot to mention there are patches attached to this.
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#38593
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:31:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 38593 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
John Soo <jsoo1 <at> asu.edu> skribis:
> When compiling with ghc, I have been getting the message that the following
> packages have invalid package databases.
Does it hurt in practice, or are these invalid databases shadowed by the
one created in the profile?
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/haskell-xyz.scm b/gnu/packages/haskell-xyz.scm
> index fb6833207d..1d78eb7894 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/haskell-xyz.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/haskell-xyz.scm
> @@ -5500,6 +5500,13 @@ representations of current time.")
> ("ghc-quickcheck" ,ghc-quickcheck)
> ("ghc-temporary" ,ghc-temporary)
> ("hspec-discover" ,hspec-discover)))
> + (arguments
> + `(#:phases
> + (modify-phases %standard-phases
> + (add-after 'install 'remove-lib
> + (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
> + (delete-file-recursively
> + (string-append (assoc-ref outputs "out") "/lib")))))))
Should we add a phase in ‘haskell-build-system’ that systematically
removes package databases?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#38593
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Fri, 20 Dec 2019 21:30:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 38593 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Ludo and guix,
Let me explain my problem. Maybe there is some other explanation here and these patches aren’t necessary.
When I have stylish-haskell installed I have troubles compiling anything using plain ghc. I want to use the ghc packages in the profile but for some reason ghc reports the database is invalid because of at least stylish-haskell and I think I’ve seen hoogle as well.
> Does it hurt in practice, or are these invalid databases shadowed by the
> one created in the profile?
I’m not sure what you mean here. I think I dod not explained my problem well enough. Does the explanation above make sense?
Another possibility is the duplication of path variables in tmux where I usually operate.
Thinking now, maybe another explanation is because stylish-haskell and ghc-stylish-haskell are fighting each other? They are duplicate packages and maybe if one is removed it will be ok?
> Should we add a phase in ‘haskell-build-system’ that systematically
> removes package databases?
I don’t think so. I like having the profile packages. A lot of times I prefer to use plain ghc with the profile packages over cabal or another tool so I’m happy to have the packages in the database.
The ones I was considering removing were ones that primarily provide a binary to use - hoogle and stylish-haskell are primarily used as binaries. However on second thought if I wanted to use them as libraries I think I would be confused as to why I could not.
Overall I am leaning towards finding some other solution.
Thanks everyone!
John
Reply sent
to
John Soo <jsoo1 <at> asu.edu>
:
You have taken responsibility.
(Fri, 01 Jan 2021 18:31:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
John Soo <jsoo1 <at> asu.edu>
:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Fri, 01 Jan 2021 18:31:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #19 received at 38593-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
I have not experienced this issue in a long time. I may come back to it
if it ever happens again.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sat, 30 Jan 2021 12:24:06 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 58 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.