[Haskell-cafe] ANN: HDBC v2.0 now available
duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Sun Feb 1 10:10:34 EST 2009
On Sun, 2009-02-01 at 15:56 +0100, Niklas Broberg wrote:
> > So in the next cabal-install release (which should be pretty soon now)
> > configure will do the same thing and pick base 3 unless you specify
> > build-depends base >= 4.
> ... and so there will never be any incentive for these many packages
> to migrate to base-4, which also has consequences for packages that do
> want to use base-4, but also want to depend on such packages. And so
> base-3 will live on in eternity, and there was never any point in
> doing that new base release at all.
> I really really think this is the wrong way to go. Occasional
> destruction is desperately needed for progress, else things will
> invariably stagnate.
I disagree. Having everything fail (we measured it as ~90% of hackage)
when people upgraded to ghc-6.10 would have been a disaster. Do you
recall the screaming, wailing and gnashing of teeth after the release of
ghc-6.8 when most of hackage broke? We (I mean ghc and cabal hackers)
got a lot of flak for not making the upgrade process easier and
needlessly breaking everyone's perfectly good packages.
This time round we went to a lot of effort to make the upgrade process
smooth. And for the most part it was. Only a small proportion of hackage
Now I agree that there is a problem with new packages where the
configure selects base 4 but install selects base 3. I've improved that
in the darcs version.
You're also right that during the lifespan of base 4 we need to
encourage new releases to start working with it because we cannot stick
with base 3 for ever. Doing that with warnings hints etc is the way to
go. Destruction is not such a friendly approach. We do not need to make
the users suffer, we just need to inform and persuade developers
uploading new releases to do the right thing.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe