Hi, Jack Hill <jackh...@jackhill.us> skribis:
>> Jack Hill <jackh...@jackhill.us> skribis: >> >>> Sure, I'll give make a path a go. You're thinking that I should try >>> applying the changes that the commit introduced as part of our package >>> definition? >> >> Yes, either that or use a snapshot of upstream haskell-mode. > > I have started workign on a patch implementing the former. I've > included what I have so far below, but it's not ready to be included > in the distribution because not all of the tests pass. Maybe this is > because the one patch shouldn't be applied in issolation and it would > be bettter to take the snapshot approach? > > Otherwise, is what I did with the package revision reasonable? Yes, definitely. > From 62ae1a14c48f3d70e6f47ffd6de60a0b9af9d43f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jack Hill <jackh...@jackhill.us> > Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 22:54:12 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] Patch haskell-mode to remove unused lexical variables > > --- > gnu/packages/emacs.scm | 174 > +++++++++++---------- > ...ell-mode-removed-unused-lexical-variables.patch | 42 +++++ > 2 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 > gnu/packages/patches/haskell-mode-removed-unused-lexical-variables.patch You’ll need to add the patch to gnu/local.mk. > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gnu/packages/patches/haskell-mode-removed-unused-lexical-variables.patch Please add a line or two with the URL of the upstream bug report or patch, and maybe a few words on what the patch is about. Thank you! Ludo’.
