Adding Coq 8.10.1 for Int63.Ring63 and Coq-Bignums

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
2 participants
  • Brett Gilio
  • Julien Lepiller
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Brett Gilio
Severity
normal

Debbugs page

Brett Gilio wrote 5 years ago
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
87imlpy07j.fsf@gnu.org
Hey all, and particularly the FM-Guix working group. I'd like to get Coq
8.10.1 into Guix as it provides support for the new Int63.Ring63 theory
number library. This would be immensely helpful in getting the
coq-bignums package up-to-date with some neat new tactics. I know that
the CoqIDE package now has an explicit dependency on lablgtk3 from
OCaml. Both Coq 8.10.1 and lablgtk3 exist on Julien's (cc) channel, but
I want to run the idea by Julien and others before possibly integrating
a new Coq into our repository.

We should be extra cautious when doing
this, as there is quite possibly some Coq packages that /do not/ run
against coqtop from a newer Coq version. So we very well may have to
make the newer Coq along side an existing version.

That's all, let me know what you think.

--
Brett M. Gilio
GNU Guix, Contributor | GNU Project, Webmaster
[DFC0 C7F7 9EE6 0CA7 AE55 5E19 6722 43C4 A03F 0EEE]
<brettg@gnu.org> <brettg@posteo.net>
Julien Lepiller wrote 5 years ago
(address . bandali@gnu.org)
5CD843B3-688A-4BBB-A5E3-1A9CF45A7E00@lepiller.eu
Le 5 janvier 2020 18:04:16 GMT-05:00, Brett Gilio <brettg@gnu.org> a écrit :
Toggle quote (17 lines)
>Hey all, and particularly the FM-Guix working group. I'd like to get
>Coq
>8.10.1 into Guix as it provides support for the new Int63.Ring63 theory
>number library. This would be immensely helpful in getting the
>coq-bignums package up-to-date with some neat new tactics. I know that
>the CoqIDE package now has an explicit dependency on lablgtk3 from
>OCaml. Both Coq 8.10.1 and lablgtk3 exist on Julien's (cc) channel, but
>I want to run the idea by Julien and others before possibly integrating
>a new Coq into our repository.
>
>We should be extra cautious when doing
>this, as there is quite possibly some Coq packages that /do not/ run
>against coqtop from a newer Coq version. So we very well may have to
>make the newer Coq along side an existing version.
>
>That's all, let me know what you think.

We don't have too many coq packages, so when updating coq I've always built them all and checked they were ok. I think coq 8.10 was released for enough time for upstream to update their code base. We should give it a try. I can work on this tomorrow and report my findings if you like. Or you could take care of it if you prefer :)

I'd prefer to have only one version of coq in guix, but if we need two of them, so be it. Let's make sure we duplicate other coq packages in that case.
Brett Gilio wrote 5 years ago
Re: bug#38959: Adding Coq 8.10.1 for Int63.Ring63 and Coq-Bignums
(name . Julien Lepiller)(address . julien@lepiller.eu)
877e25xoi1.fsf@gnu.org
Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> writes:

Toggle quote (27 lines)
> Le 5 janvier 2020 18:04:16 GMT-05:00, Brett Gilio <brettg@gnu.org> a écrit :
>>Hey all, and particularly the FM-Guix working group. I'd like to get
>>Coq
>>8.10.1 into Guix as it provides support for the new Int63.Ring63 theory
>>number library. This would be immensely helpful in getting the
>>coq-bignums package up-to-date with some neat new tactics. I know that
>>the CoqIDE package now has an explicit dependency on lablgtk3 from
>>OCaml. Both Coq 8.10.1 and lablgtk3 exist on Julien's (cc) channel, but
>>I want to run the idea by Julien and others before possibly integrating
>>a new Coq into our repository.
>>
>>We should be extra cautious when doing
>>this, as there is quite possibly some Coq packages that /do not/ run
>>against coqtop from a newer Coq version. So we very well may have to
>>make the newer Coq along side an existing version.
>>
>>That's all, let me know what you think.
>
> We don't have too many coq packages, so when updating coq I've always
> built them all and checked they were ok. I think coq 8.10 was released
> for enough time for upstream to update their code base. We should give
> it a try. I can work on this tomorrow and report my findings if you
> like. Or you could take care of it if you prefer :)
>
> I'd prefer to have only one version of coq in guix, but if we need two of them, so be it. Let's make sure we duplicate other coq packages in that case.
>

I should have some time tonight. I will give it a shot and open a patch
series, and report back the bug number here. :)

--
Brett M. Gilio
GNU Guix, Contributor | GNU Project, Webmaster
[DFC0 C7F7 9EE6 0CA7 AE55 5E19 6722 43C4 A03F 0EEE]
<brettg@gnu.org> <brettg@posteo.net>
Brett Gilio wrote 5 years ago
(name . Julien Lepiller)(address . julien@lepiller.eu)
8736ctvuzz.fsf@gnu.org
Brett Gilio <brettg@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (32 lines)
> Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> writes:
>
>> Le 5 janvier 2020 18:04:16 GMT-05:00, Brett Gilio <brettg@gnu.org> a écrit :
>>>Hey all, and particularly the FM-Guix working group. I'd like to get
>>>Coq
>>>8.10.1 into Guix as it provides support for the new Int63.Ring63 theory
>>>number library. This would be immensely helpful in getting the
>>>coq-bignums package up-to-date with some neat new tactics. I know that
>>>the CoqIDE package now has an explicit dependency on lablgtk3 from
>>>OCaml. Both Coq 8.10.1 and lablgtk3 exist on Julien's (cc) channel, but
>>>I want to run the idea by Julien and others before possibly integrating
>>>a new Coq into our repository.
>>>
>>>We should be extra cautious when doing
>>>this, as there is quite possibly some Coq packages that /do not/ run
>>>against coqtop from a newer Coq version. So we very well may have to
>>>make the newer Coq along side an existing version.
>>>
>>>That's all, let me know what you think.
>>
>> We don't have too many coq packages, so when updating coq I've always
>> built them all and checked they were ok. I think coq 8.10 was released
>> for enough time for upstream to update their code base. We should give
>> it a try. I can work on this tomorrow and report my findings if you
>> like. Or you could take care of it if you prefer :)
>>
>> I'd prefer to have only one version of coq in guix, but if we need two of them, so be it. Let's make sure we duplicate other coq packages in that case.
>>
>
> I should have some time tonight. I will give it a shot and open a patch
> series, and report back the bug number here. :)

Moving conversation to bugs.gnu.org/38965. Closing.

--
Brett M. Gilio
GNU Guix, Contributor | GNU Project, Webmaster
[DFC0 C7F7 9EE6 0CA7 AE55 5E19 6722 43C4 A03F 0EEE]
<brettg@gnu.org> <brettg@posteo.net>
Closed
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 38959@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 38959
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch
You may also tag this issue. See list of standard tags. For example, to set the confirmed and easy tags
mumi command -t +confirmed -t +easy
Or, remove the moreinfo tag and set the help tag
mumi command -t -moreinfo -t +help