request: re-add nats

[vyp]

Continuing from #179 and 5de5bcb, when I try to update, I still get:

error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: haskell-nats: requires ghc=7.8.4-1
:: haskell-nats: requires haskell-hashable=1.2.3.1-2

haskell-nats seems to be a dependency for haskell-pandoc-citeproc and haskell-pandoc, though not directly (though I also might be wrong about this?). So removing it fails too. Have I done something wrong?

I know you said nats didn't make it over to ghc 7.10.1, but is this relevant?:
https://github.com/ekmett/nats/blob/9eb53dc5974ea93d14a29da892d95fd773cd38b4/nats.cabal#L44-45

And for the requires haskell-hashable=1.2.3.1-2 line: https://github.com/ekmett/nats/blob/9eb53dc5974ea93d14a29da892d95fd773cd38b4/nats.cabal#L51 (because the current version of hashable in the repository is 1.2.3.2-76).

[magthe]

As you point out, nats lives in base now, so there's no need for the package to be re-added. There are a few packages out there that depend on nats and don't bother to make the dependency dependant on the Ghc version. For these packages it would be interesting to add an empty nat package. Unfortunately building the docs fail if there are no modules in the library. Given the low number of packages depending on nats (2) I've opted to patch their Cabal files, rather than make the necessary patches to build an empty haskell-nats package. See https://github.com/archhaskell/habs/blob/master/patches/semigroups.cabal.and https://github.com/archhaskell/habs/blob/master/patches/th-orphans.cabal.

So just remove the old haskell-nats package and then re-install haskell-pandoc.

[vyp]

Awesome! Much thanks! ✨ 👍

As I said before, I couldn't remove nats since it was a dependency to another package, so I just simply removed and then reinstalled the entire haskell platform (including pandoc obviously), and everything worked. (I didn't want to do this first without asking since pandoc is a high priority package for me.)

Also, forgot to say thanks for bringing over pandoc-citeproc too in #179, so Kudos. :)