Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

jose-jwt doctests failing due to "Ambiguous interface" #2169

Closed
DanBurton opened this issue Dec 29, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

jose-jwt doctests failing due to "Ambiguous interface" #2169

DanBurton opened this issue Dec 29, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

@DanBurton
Copy link
Contributor

Even though I added the non-cryptonite packages to the hide section of build-constraints.yaml, these errors still occurred.

> /tmp/stackage-build12/jose-jwt-0.7.4$ dist/build/doctests/doctests

Jose/Internal/Base64.hs:8:1: warning: [-Wdeprecations]
    Module ‘Control.Monad.Error’ is deprecated:
      Use Control.Monad.Except instead

Jose/Jwk.hs:23:1: error:
    Ambiguous interface for ‘Crypto.Random’:
      it was found in multiple packages:
      crypto-random-0.0.9 cryptonite-0.21 crypto-api-0.13.2

Jose/Jwk.hs:24:1: error:
    Ambiguous interface for ‘Crypto.PubKey.RSA’:
      it was found in multiple packages:
      crypto-pubkey-0.2.8 cryptonite-0.21

Jose/Jwk.hs:25:1: error:
    Ambiguous interface for ‘Crypto.PubKey.ECC.ECDSA’:
      it was found in multiple packages:
      crypto-pubkey-0.2.8 cryptonite-0.21

Jose/Jwk.hs:27:1: error:
    Ambiguous interface for ‘Crypto.Number.Serialize’:
      it was found in multiple packages:
      crypto-numbers-0.2.7 cryptonite-0.21
@bergmark
Copy link
Member

@DanBurton are you sure the hidden packages were rebuilt?

@DanBurton
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bergmark I thought the build script might take care of it. Apparently not? Do we have a "best practice" for forcing a select few packages to rebuild?

@bergmark
Copy link
Member

Maybe @snoyberg knows a good way to do it? I hackety hacked it last time by adding an upper bound to force a rebuild, and then lifting it again.

@juhp
Copy link
Contributor

juhp commented Jan 7, 2017

Might be better now after #2181?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants