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
As far as I know, ghc 6.4.1 has been declared stable and existed in
package form for a full 4 months now, since mid-September.
Are there any platforms for which 6.4.0 packages exist but not 6.4.1 packages?
Will anyone be messed up if 6.4.1 becomes a minimum hard requirement?
Its not typically
