qualified imports, PVP and so on

[Michael Snoyman]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <
ivan.miljenovic at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 February 2014 23:25, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr at gnu.org> wrote:
> > On 2014-02-26 at 13:09:37 +0100, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> +1. If we're discussing PVP changes, the other one I'd like to propose
> is:
> >>
> >> Don't include upper bounds on base, template-haskell, or other libraries
> >> which cannot be upgraded, unless you know with certainty that your
> package
> >> will not compile with those other versions. Motivation:
> >>
> >> * The bounds will never help cabal choose a better build plan.
> >
> > ...this assumes (as I mentioned in an earlier post) that GHC is never
> > going to ship again with two versions of base (like in the past with
> > base3/4). For that case, we'd want at least something like `base < 5` as
> > upper bound in place (with the policy that `5.*` will only ever be
> > reached if something really disruptive is done to `base`)
>
> Agreed; there were a few packages that failed on Gentoo because the
> author stated that it worked with "base < 5", even though they'd only
> tested it with cabal-install and at the time it was defaulting to
> base-3 (though using the runhaskell Setup.hs method used the "best
> version").
>
> That might be reasonable for the other such libraries though.  But to
> be specific: are we including libraries such as bytestring,
> containers, etc. as those that can be upgraded or cannot be upgraded?
>

I'm making the more modest proposal, and just focusing on libraries which
cannot at all be upgraded.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140226/244ac88d/attachment-0001.html>