[darcs-devel] [issue1993] Darcs get fails, darcs repair lies

[Petr Ročkai]

Petr Ročkai <me at mornfall.net> added the comment:

Hello,

Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> writes:
> darcs +RTS --info
>  [("GHC RTS", "YES")
>  ,("GHC version", "6.10.4")
>  ,("RTS way", "rts_thr")
>  ,("Host platform", "i386-unknown-mingw32")
>  ,("Host architecture", "i386")
>  ,("Host OS", "mingw32")
>  ,("Host vendor", "unknown")
>  ,("Build platform", "i386-unknown-mingw32")
>  ,("Build architecture", "i386")
>  ,("Build OS", "mingw32")
>  ,("Build vendor", "unknown")
>  ,("Target platform", "i386-unknown-mingw32")
>  ,("Target architecture", "i386")
>  ,("Target OS", "mingw32")
>  ,("Target vendor", "unknown")
>  ,("Word size", "32")
>  ,("Compiler unregisterised", "NO")
>  ,("Tables next to code", "YES")
>  ]

now the next question is: do you think you could compile a darcs binary
with 6.12? (Unfortunately, we don't quite work on GHC 7 yet... and
congrats on the release, by the way...)

I guess it's a bit tricky with cURL on windows, but you could try with
-f-curl: it may be a bit slower on HTTP downloads, although I guess slow
but working is better than fast but hanging half the time.

I am not sure whether I should recommend going with 2.5 at the occasion:
it ought to be faster on some operations (especially on the hashed GHC
repo), although it may also come with new and interesting bugs (I have
my share of guilt in that, admittedly). On the other hand, many of us
have been using it for a fairly long time without running into anything
serious, as far as I can tell. It's ultimately your call. :)

Either way, please let us know how it is going. If you can't build for
whatever reason, we can look around for a better Windows binary for
you...

Yours,
   Petr.

__________________________________
Darcs bug tracker <bugs at darcs.net>
<http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1993>
__________________________________