Darren Duncan wrote:
> ghc 6.4.1 works with any gcc version, both 3.3 and 4.0, so users with
> either gcc installed, the newer ghc will just work.
>
> ghc 6.4.0 works only with gcc 3.3, so those people that get 4.0 by
> default will have to downgrade to work with 6.4.0.
I've just committed r8839,
On 1/29/06, jesse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the benefit of bumping the ghc dependency up?
Well, if it helps, ghc-6.4.1 was a bugfix release from ghc-6.4.0, so
we're not getting any new features.
Luke
On 1/29/06, Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ghc 6.4.0 works only with gcc 3.3, so those people that get 4.0 by
> default will have to downgrade to work with 6.4.0.
Wait---so if your proposal isn't effected, then people will be unable
to upgrade to ghc 6.4.1, and will instead have to dow
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:52:55PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Assuming no trouble, I propose that 6.4.1 is the minimum dependency
> for Pugs 6.28.0, if not 6.2.11 as well, the latter probably due any
> day now.
What's the benefit of bumping the ghc dependency up?
Jesse
>
> -- Darren Dunc
At 10:55 PM -0500 1/28/06, jesse wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:52:55PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
Assuming no trouble, I propose that 6.4.1 is the minimum dependency
for Pugs 6.28.0, if not 6.2.11 as well, the latter probably due any
day now.
What's the benefit of bumping the ghc depen
