Issue with package "pretty"
david.maciver at gmail.com
Sun Apr 27 17:52:08 EDT 2008
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Duncan Coutts
<duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 22:07 +0100, David MacIver wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Duncan Coutts
> > <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 21:29 +0100, David MacIver wrote:
> > >
> > > > The main thing I'd like to borrow from the Nix approach is the ability
> > > > to back out of the package change. I'm really more bothered about the
> > > > fact that it left me with a nonfunctioning build system (until someone
> > > > pointed out runghc would compile everything from source) than anything
> > > > else. :-)
> > >
> > > Yes, that's one of its great features, that installed packages are never
> > > modified, that you just add new ones and GC old ones.
> > >
> > > Though in this case you didn't modify any package you just masked it. At
> > > least I assume that's what you did. In which case the solution was to
> > > unregister the version that was masking the normal one.
> > No, the problem seems to be that because the old and new copies of
> > pretty have the same version number the installation of it overwrote
> > the old one with an incompatible file.
> So it depends if you installed 'pretty' as a global or user package. If
> as global then you'd have replaced the registration for the pre-existing
> instance. If as user then it's just the masking that I was mentioning
I installed it as a global package. In future I think I'm very likely
to install a lot more as user packages to avoid this sort of issue.
More information about the Libraries