v3.2.6: outdated libraries

[hseg]

The release script edits in 3a4dab2..7e1c0a1 pulled in a dependency on libtinfo.so.5, for some reason (presumably the old Ubuntu version used there still uses it). This breaks attempts at using the binary directly on Arch Linux (where libtinfo.so.6 is the norm for at least two years now). Of course, rebuilding locally fixes the issue.
Incidentally, this also reveals a hidden dependency on libgcc_s.so.1. While this existed on my system, the fact that it could be avoided by a clean rebuild indicates the release script still needs some work.
Attached is a PKGBUILD for Arch Linux providing a static build (at least, wrt haskell packages).
PKGBUILD.txt

[ndmitchell]

The old binaries were produced on Travis, but that's no longer an option.

In order to produce binaries on all platforms, using fairly standardised infrastructure, it means I need to use GitHub CI, as that's what I already use and have set up. Given that, I can certainly tweak the Linux version, but do you know any way I can produce a binary with fewer dependencies? I did try a newer Ubuntu, but that made the binary releases work in less places, so the older Ubuntu seems to be more compatible than it was before.

Should the PKGBUILD get submitted to Arch Linux somehow? I'm not really familiar with how Arch Linux works in this respect.

[hseg]

Understood. Was trying to get clarification whether this was a regression or a deliberate policy. Provided PKGBUILD as stopgap in case of the former, will formally publish it for Arch later this evening. Thanks for the clarification.

On February 6, 2021 10:26:46 PM GMT+02:00, Neil Mitchell ***@***.***> wrote: The old binaries were produced on Travis, but that's no longer an option. In order to produce binaries on all platforms, using fairly standardised infrastructure, it means I need to use GitHub CI, as that's what I already use and have set up. Given that, I can certainly tweak the Linux version, but do you know any way I can produce a binary with fewer dependencies? I did try a newer Ubuntu, but that made the binary releases work in less places, so the older Ubuntu seems to be more compatible than it was before. Should the PKGBUILD get submitted to Arch Linux somehow? I'm not really familiar with how Arch Linux works in this respect. -- You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #1208 (comment)

-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[hseg]

Done: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/hlint-static-git/

[ndmitchell]

I think regression and deliberate policy are strongly overstating how much control I have here :) Thanks for the Arch package - I think that's probably the way to go for Arch users.

[hseg]

It appears (cf the above-linked aur page) that the builds no longer require libtinfo.so.5 - if you can confirm this is intended behaviour/we won't regress on this, seems this can be closed. Confirmation would also help kick this dep from other packages… except I can't find any atm that still have the dep.

[ndmitchell]

As before, this is based on whichever GHC is available when the github runs, with the latest OS image provided by GitHub, so I guess it's intentional, but don't guarantee.