[GHC] #14558: Unable to parse integer-gmp's Cabal file

[GHC]

#14558: Unable to parse integer-gmp's Cabal file
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
        Reporter:  taylorfausak      |                Owner:  hvr
            Type:  task              |               Status:  new
        Priority:  normal            |            Milestone:
       Component:  Core Libraries    |              Version:  8.2.2
      Resolution:                    |             Keywords:
Operating System:  Unknown/Multiple  |         Architecture:
                                     |  Unknown/Multiple
 Type of failure:  None/Unknown      |            Test Case:
      Blocked By:                    |             Blocking:
 Related Tickets:                    |  Differential Rev(s):
       Wiki Page:                    |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by svenpanne):

 Replying to [comment:28 Phyx-]:
 > It was announced, about 3 months ago,
 http://coldwa.st/e/blog/2017-09-09-Cabal-2-0.html
 > along with the future intention of this syntax and how it differs from
 the strong bounded versions: [...]

 Hmmm, this is still confusing: On the one hand it is said
 (https://www.haskell.org/cabal/users-guide/developing-
 packages.html?highlight=caret#pkg-field-build-depends) that the new syntax
 is ''exactly'' equivalent to the old syntax using `>=` and `<`. OTOH,
 http://coldwa.st/e/blog/2017-09-09-Cabal-2-0.html states that it has
 different semantics.

 Furthermore, I still don't get the difference between the new `^>=`
 operator and leaving out the upper bound completely. Surely the latter
 can't really mean "I promise I work with every following version", in the
 absence of clairvoyant abilities this would be a lie. So using only `>=`
 without an upper bound seems to be equivalent to the new operator, I fail
 to see another sensible interpretation.

 > [...] It was designed and approved in public
 https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/3705 it was publicly posted on
 reddit
 https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/6z2gja/whats_new_in_cabalcabalinstall_20_improved/
 >
 > And the migration plan was outlined
 https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/4899.

 Perhaps I'm getting a little bit old, but I consider neither reddit nor
 twitter as a source of serious information. Nothing was posted on the
 haskell, haskell-cafe or ghc-dev mailing lists about it. The only thing I
 was able to find was a Haskell Weekly issue pointing to the blog, having
 the feature buried in the middle of a multi-page item list, which is a bit
 indirect IMHO.

 > Could it be that perhaps a lot of people here don't read Cabal release
 information? Or follow Cabal development? [...]

 Serious non-aggressive question: As a developer using ''only'' stack, why
 should I read the Cabal release information or even follow Cabal
 development? Note that I am not hostile towards the project or something
 like that, it's just that I am not interested in it anymore because stack
 is a much better fit for my work. My expectation from a library developer
 POV would be some explicit hint about changes in the ecosystem, not about
 changes in some tool I don't use.

 > [...] The fact is, the change was not done in secret, the feature not
 developed in secret. The change was communicated well ahead of time and on
 channels that lots of you frequent.

 As mentioned above, I think it would have been great if this had been
 posted on one of the Haskell mailing lists, which I still consider ''the''
 channel to get information from. Not everybody has the time and energy to
 read all those various (and most of the time uninformative and time
 sucking) communication channels which beg for your attention... :-/

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/14558#comment:31>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler