[arch-haskell] Adding another data file for dependency "hints"
magnus at therning.org
Sat Oct 12 07:37:53 UTC 2013
On 03/01/11 19:49, Peter Simons wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
> > Now you make me think that I might have missed something, but surely
> > parsec version 2.2 wouldn't satisfy the former, but would satisfy the
> > latter.
> yes, this is true, of course.
> It is impossible to map that Cabal expression to Pacman without losing
> some information. In this particular case, that restriction is lost. If
> a version 2.2 of parsec were to come out, and if we were to decide to
> ship that version, then we'd have to update the email-validate PKGBUILD
> in order to fix the build.
> Now, the alternative is to encode the Cabal expression in question as
> ('parsec>=2.1.0' 'parsec<2.2'). That choice means that email-validate
> won't build anymore if we decide to upgrade to parsec 3.
> In a way, both solutions are equally inaccurate, so we can choose either
> one. I just happen to prefer the first solution because I feel that an
> upgrade to parsec 3 is far more likely to occur than an upgrade to 2.2,
> simply because parsec 3 exists, but parsec 2.2 does not.
> Does that make sense?
In this particular example I have a feeling that it's parsec that is the
problem ;-) Staying with parsec though, would it make sense to take HP in
consideration when converting the dependencies? I.e, when the CABAL
dependency says "parsec >= 3.0 || == 2.1.*" then we choose "parsec>=2.1.0,
parsec<2.2.0" simply because that's the version in HP.
Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4
email: magnus at therning.org jabber: magnus at therning.org
twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the arch-haskell