CI related minor improvements.

3 patches for repository http://darcs.net/screened:

patch 5d9c2de9a47b3f3c61ded14c3e3b9afb4b936fb8
Author: Ben Franksen <ben.franksen@online.de>
Date:   Fri Mar  5 06:55:01 CET 2021
  * ci: extend the test matrix, explicit OS versions

patch 3396f8752fb934c8dec2fa6592d9932c5c73f785
Author: Ben Franksen <ben.franksen@online.de>
Date:   Mon May 10 15:31:38 CEST 2021
  * ci: ghc-8.10.3 -> ghc-8.10.4

patch 15f268155f2f6f743ef48785fa4e90344b8440ac
Author: Ben Franksen <ben.franksen@online.de>
Date:   Mon May 10 16:05:25 CEST 2021
  * work-around for build-failure on ubuntu if libnuma is not installed

Attachments

• ci_-extend-the-test-matrix_-explicit-os-versions.dpatch
• patch-preview.txt
• unnamed

Ah, sorry: the

* work-around for build-failure on ubuntu if libnuma is not 
installed

doesn't seem to work. I tested locally on my machine by removing 
libnuma and it succeeded there, but the CI still stumbles over it.

Perhaps it's time to drop support for ghc-8.4.4 as this seems to be 
the only version which cannot currently build the (indirect) 
basement dependency. See https://github.com/bfrk/darcs-
ci/actions/runs/828788527

I have obliterated patch 15f268155f2f6f743ef48785fa4e90344b8440ac in 
screened.

This fixes the CI by excluding the matrix combination that fails because
building basement runs into a linker error.

1 patch for repository http://darcs.net/screened:

patch 70148bdcd31a044142f7f38e147ff646b4630782
Author: Ben Franksen <ben.franksen@online.de>
Date:   Mon May 10 22:52:17 CEST 2021
  * ci: exclude ubuntu-18/ghc-8.4.4

Attachments

• ci_-exclude-ubuntu_18_ghc_8_4_4.dpatch
• patch-preview.txt
• unnamed

Looks fine. I'm in favour of moving to GHC >=8.6.

> Looks fine. I'm in favour of moving to GHC >=8.6.

It occurs to me that it might be profitable to retain the ability to
build a current darcs on darcs.net. What if we throw out ghc-8.2.2 and
then find another critical bug that perhaps requires/suggests repairing
our own repos again?

On 16/05/2021 12:19, Ben Franksen wrote:
> 
> Ben Franksen <ben.franksen@online.de> added the comment:
> 
>> Looks fine. I'm in favour of moving to GHC >=8.6.
> 
> It occurs to me that it might be profitable to retain the ability to
> build a current darcs on darcs.net. What if we throw out ghc-8.2.2 and
> then find another critical bug that perhaps requires/suggests repairing
> our own repos again?

Then I think we should do it elsewhere and copy the result back up.

The infrastructure on darcs.net is a huge legacy that we will have to do
something about at some point, but I don't think it benefits us to hold
back mainline development just because of it.

Ganesh