Re: LTS 11?

To: debian-haskell@lists.debian.org, 886222@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: LTS 11?
From: Clint Adams <clint@debian.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 17:54:18 +0000
Message-id: <[🔎] 20180405175418.bp2gyfxk3z3p32ss@scru.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 1522679791.2699.3.camel@debian.org>
References: <[🔎] 1522633972.21199.21.camel@debian.org> <[🔎] 20180402030730.u5gk5m3jwb7n5r2k@scru.org> <[🔎] 1522679791.2699.3.camel@debian.org>

On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 10:36:31AM -0400, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> hmm, would it be too bad to remove Haskell on mips from testing during
> the transition? This way the transition can happen in parallel to the
> linker fix being implemented, and mips can catch up once they are
> ready.
> 
> Or maybe the non-gold linker can be used on mips?

Okay, binutils 2.30-14 theoretically fixes the problem.  Anyone have the
time to verify this?

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: LTS 11?
  - From: Clint Adams <clint@debian.org>

References:
- LTS 11?
  - From: Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org>
- Re: LTS 11?
  - From: Clint Adams <clint@debian.org>
- Re: LTS 11?
  - From: Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: LTS 11?
Next by Date: Re: RFA: jhc -- Haskell compiler that produce binary through C language
Previous by thread: Re: LTS 11?
Next by thread: Re: LTS 11?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread