planning for ghc-6.10.1 and hackage
duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Thu Oct 2 04:29:32 EDT 2008
On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 23:35 -0600, humasect wrote:
> Since nothing (relatively) is dependant on base 4, why not call it
> 'base-4' ? Or hide it like 'ghc' and some other packages are hidden
> from inclusion when not explicitly referenced.
It is called base-4, it's name is base and the version number is 4. I
think what you're asking is why we do not call it "base4-0" or something
and the reason is because that looses the connection between versions of
packages. Though on the plus side it'd force everyone to specify a major
api version, but the right way to do that is to require closed version
ranges on base in .cabal files (and other packages that follow the
package versioning policy)
> Or.. in theory if someone or something can go through all cabal and
> add "&& base < 4" through a Hackage filter? <- my apologies I am not
> that knowledgeable, but this is what I did for example with my project
> that uses storablevector.
Yes, that would work if every package on hackage were updated or if we
could adjust the .cabal file for every package. Well, it would work for
runghc Setup configure, the automatic dependency resolver in
cabal-install would still need fixing if we want to continue using that.
Don and I have spent the last 6 hours discussing the problem and we are
now at the stage where we think it might be solvable. I'm going to work
on it all day tomorrow and we'll see where we can get.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users