Current state of ghc boot lib versions vs. hackage
Carter Schonwald
carter.schonwald at gmail.com
Thu Aug 29 16:23:09 CEST 2013
Different package authors have different policies, but if the use of a few
#ifdefs allows compatibility with more ghc versions, I think most folks
would consider that a win.
On Thursday, August 29, 2013, Jan Stolarek wrote:
> I'm still not sure how to handle libraries that I modified with my primops
> change (#6135): primitive and array. There is some discussion on the core
> libraries commitee list and it seems that I'll have to further modify
> primops, and thus primitive and array, before 7.8 is released. Should I
> submit my patches to maintainers of these two libraries? Also, in order to
> make updated versions of the libraries compatible with older versions of
> GHC I would need to add some #ifdef pragmas. The question is whether we and
> package maintainers want that compatibility or should we expect that newly
> released versions of primitive and array will require at least 7.8 to run?
>
> Janek
>
> ----- Oryginalna wiadomość -----
> Od: "shelarcy" <shelarcy at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> Do: "Herbert Valerio Riedel" <hvr at gnu.org <javascript:;>>
> DW: ghc-devs at haskell.org <javascript:;>
> Wysłane: czwartek, 29 sierpień 2013 12:24:55
> Temat: Re: Current state of ghc boot lib versions vs. hackage
>
> Hello Herbert,
>
> I think that current GHC HEAD's primitive and vector are undesirable
> version.
>
> Because:
>
> 1. GHC HEAD's primitive and vector are older than latest released
> version. (You already pointed out that.)
> 2. But ... GHC HEAD's primitive and vector have some changes from older
> released version (to build with GHC HEAD).
> 3. primitive HEAD and vector HEAD has some changes from latest release.
> These are not same as above GHC HEAD's changes.
> 4. We can't merge simd branch's primitive and vector changes before
> merging primive HEAD and vector HEAD' changes. (Becuase simd branch's
> primitive and vector depend on primitive HEAD and vector HEAD's changes.)
>
> By above reasons, I think that GHC HEAD should merge primitive HEAD and
> vector HEAD's changes.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:56:08 +0900, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr at gnu.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've compared what versions current GHC HEAD uses w/ vs. what's
> > currently available on Hackage (see below);
> >
> > So currently, the following packages have newer versions available on
> > hackage than are used in GHC HEAD:
> >
> > - binary
> > - containers
> > - primitive
> > - time
> > - vector
> >
> > In order to clarify a point that has been an issue in the past:
> >
> > Can it be assumed that the GHC 7.8 feature-freeze scheduled for 14 Sept
> > 2013[1] is also the library version freeze deadline, by which upstream
> > package authors shall submit new package versions they want to ship as
> > GHC boot libs w/ GHC 7.8.1? (and thus should be given an "heads-up" asap)
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > package hackage GHC HEAD
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Cabal 1.18.0 == 1.18.0
> > array 0.4.0.1 < 0.4.0.2
> > base 4.6.0.1 < 4.7.0.0
> > bin-package-db 0.0.0.0 == 0.0.0.0
> > binary 0.7.1.0 > 0.7.0.0
> > bytestring 0.10.2.0 < 0.10.3.0
> > containers 0.5.2.1 > 0.5.0.0
> > deepseq 1.3.0.1 < 1.3.0.2
> > directory 1.2.0.1 == 1.2.0.1
> > dph-base 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1
> > (dph-lifted-base) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1
> > (dph-lifted-boxed) - 0.8.0.1
> > (dph-lifted-copy) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1
> > (dph-lifted-vseg) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1
> > (dph-prim-interface) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1
> > (dph-prim-par) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1
> > (dph-prim-seq) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1
> > filepath 1.3.0.1 < 1.3.0.2
> > (ghc) 7.6.3 < 7.7.20130826
> > ghc-prim 0.3.0.0 < 0.3.1.0
> > haskeline 0.7.0.3 < 0.7.0.4
> > (haskell2010)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20130829/33a04dca/attachment.htm>
More information about the ghc-devs
mailing list