HP 2015.2.0.0 and GHC 7.10
fuuzetsu at fuuzetsu.co.uk
Mon Mar 30 02:23:26 UTC 2015
On 03/28/2015 04:27 PM, Randy Polen wrote:
> Haddock issue #285 indeed sounds like a win (or Win-dows).
> A logistical wrinkle I worry about for the short-term is that
> the HP uses the GHC release, and haddock is part of that release. I can certainly
> incorporate a newer haddock, but I want to mention this GHC-related release
> issue in case others here have a better approach for this part of the plan (e.g.,
> "yes, go ahead and augment GHC 7.10.1 release with a custom haddock" or
> "no, let's spin up a 126.96.36.199 (?)").
> There is also the Cabal piece as well, but that is separate from GHC and thus
> a bit easier to incorporate into the HP build.
We cut a Haddock release when GHC comes out so that it's easy to track
versions but that's simply to try to keep some sanity when users report
--version. But there is nothing stopping us from releasing a new Haddock
version without forcing a GHC release. If I release 2.16.1 tomorrow with
the argument list thing, you can just cabal install install it. As long
as your system knows to look into binaries built through cabal first and
binaries shipped with GHC second, you'll be golden.
For HP purposes, you probably want to ship 2.16.1 (or whatever version)
when that comes out because tools like cabal-install depend on the
version number to determine what features (such as response files) are
I don't have a date for next point release. Do you have a date for HP?
More information about the ghc-devs