Commit 94aed1fd authored by Simon Marlow's avatar Simon Marlow
Browse files

add test for #1750

parent 687a3f69
<command line>: unknown package: 1750A-1
{1750A-1}, {1750B-1}
name: 1750A
version: 1
depends: 1750B-1
name: 1750B
version: 1
depends: 1750A-1
......@@ -68,6 +68,15 @@ ghcpkg04 :
@: # testpkg- and newtestpkg-2.0 are both exposed now
@$(TEST_HC) -package-conf $(PKGCONF) -c ghcpkg04.hs || true
@rm -f $(PKGCONF) 1750.hs 1750.o 1750.hi 1750.out
@echo "[]" >$(PKGCONF)
@$(LOCAL_GHC_PKG) register --force 1750A.pkg >1750.out 2>&1
@$(LOCAL_GHC_PKG) register --force 1750B.pkg >1750.out 2>&1
@$(LOCAL_GHC_PKG) list
@echo "main = return ()" >1750.hs
@$(TEST_HC) -package-conf $(PKGCONF) -package 1750A 1750.hs || true
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Try piping the output of "ghc-pkg describe" into "ghc-pkg update" for
# every package we know about. This is for testing the pretty printing/parsing
......@@ -12,3 +12,5 @@ clean(['local.package.conf', 'local.package.conf.old'])
# Test that we *can* compile a module that also belongs to a package
# (this was disallowed in GHC 6.4 and earlier)
test('pkg01', normal, compile, [''])
test('1750', normal, run_command, ['$MAKE --no-print-directory 1750'])
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment