guix-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug#52164] [PATCH] gnu: coq: Update to 8.14.0.


From: zimoun
Subject: [bug#52164] [PATCH] gnu: coq: Update to 8.14.0.
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:21:16 +0100

Hi Julien,

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 13:30, Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> wrote:

> >With this approach, 3 builds.  Is it required by kind-of Coq bootstrap?
>
> Coq now uses dune, and it is split into core, stdlib anl coq. I prefer to 
> build one dune package in each guix package, rather than everything, 
> especially since we want to separate coq-ide.

Thanks for the explanations.  So LGTM. :-)


> >>  (define-public coq-bignums
> >>    (package
> >>      (name "coq-bignums")
> >> -    (version "8.13.0")
> >> +    (version "8.14.0")
> >
> >This…
> >
> >>  (define-public coq-equations
> >>    (package
> >>      (name "coq-equations")
> >> -    (version "1.2.4")
> >> +    (version "1.3")
> >
> >and this… Cannot they be upgraded by a separated commit?
> >
> >They will probably be broken with Coq 8.13 but if their upgrade is right
> >after and pushed with the same batch, it is transparent and the
> >atomicity appears to me better.
>
> They're broken with coq 8.13, and the previous version is also broken with 
> coq 8.14. This is why I was able to update coq semantics independently but 
> not these two.

Hum, the breakage of coq-bignums or coq-equations is recent.  Because
using 65234d0 from Nov. 2nd, they are substituable; using coq@8.13.2.
Or do you mean that coq-binums@8.13 is broken with coq@8.14?

In all cases, it appears to me clearer to have:

 1. update coq
 2. update coq-bignums
 3. update coq-equations

i.e., update the "compiler" and fix then the breakage introduced by
this "compiler" upgrade, e.g., upgrade other packages.  We are always
doing like that, no?


Cheers,
simon





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]