[Slackbuilds-users] Updates - 20101212

[Mikko Varri]

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:19:11AM -0600, Robby Workman wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:58:52 +0200
> Mikko Varri <vmj at linuxbox.fi> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:28:08PM +0000, Robby Workman wrote:
> > > 
> > > libraries/haskell-HTTP: Updated for version 4000.0.10.
> > > libraries/haskell-HUnit: Updated for version 1.2.2.3.
> > > libraries/haskell-QuickCheck: Updated for version 2.3.0.2.
> > > libraries/haskell-deepseq: Updated for version 1.1.0.1.
> > > libraries/haskell-haskeline: Updated for version 0.6.3.1.
> > > libraries/haskell-mtl: Updated for version 1.1.1.0.
> > > libraries/haskell-network: Updated for version 2.2.1.10.
> > > libraries/haskell-paralell: Updated for version 3.1.0.1.
> > > libraries/haskell-terminfo: Updated for version 0.3.1.3.
> > 
> > Robby,
> > 
> > I wonder why you moved SRCNAM in some of these SlackBuilds but not in
> > all of them?
> 
> 
> Eeek, no idea.  If I missed one, it wasn't intentional.  In fact,
> I'm pretty sure I fixed *all* of them, which means that I likely
> committed the wrong directory somewhere, which might explain the
> interesting db conflicts I got, which might mean that some of this
> is more f'd up than what is expected.  :/
> 


libraries/haskell-QuickCheck
libraries/haskell-parallel

These two still have the PRGNAM=haskell-$SRCNAM.  I can fix them in my
branch, now that I know what's going on, and they will get updated on
next submit (whenever I get around to that).


> > I was originally following perl SlackBuild template in the usage of
> > SRCNAM.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I guess I should fix that.  It's an uwritten rule, I suppose,
> but PRGNAM in SlackBuild should be identical to PRGNAM in .info file.
> 
>


I see.


> 
> > Curiously, where you didn't move it (haskell-{parallel,QuickCheck}),
> > you introduced the quotation problem which seems fixed already :)
> 
> 
> A quote problem in the .info file?  If so, yeah, but I *thought* I
> fixed those.  sigh.  Can you send me a fixed tarball of any that
> are wrong? 
> 
> 


No, I meant they all got fixed before I managed to send that email.
Sorry if I implied they weren't.  There's no problem.


-vmj