checking upper bounds on base
johan.tibell at gmail.com
Tue Jun 2 09:29:57 EDT 2009
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:26:34AM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > You mentioned in the ticket that we need to have base strictly following
> > the PVP. That's true of course. I'm assured by the GHC hackers that
> > they're committed to the PVP. The reason for bumping 4.0 -> 4.1 is being
> > looked at but their first guess is that it was the change in GHC's
> > finaliser semantics (which did indeed break a couple programs).
> The reason base's version was bumped from 4.0 to 4.1 is that there were
> some changes that required it, according to the PvP, e.g.
> was removed.
> I don't know if there were any such changes in non-GHC.* modules, as I
> stopped looking when I found the first change.
> For the future, one option would be to exclude GHC.* from the PvP
> requirements, although then you have problems with any package which
> uses GHC.*.
I don't think so as low level libraries like network must use GHC modules
for functions like threadWaitRead. If network's dependencies don't follow
PVP so can't network itself, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cabal-devel