planning for ghc-6.10.1 and hackage

Bulat Ziganshin bulat.ziganshin at
Fri Oct 3 11:44:25 EDT 2008

Hello Simon,

Friday, October 3, 2008, 12:55:34 PM, you wrote:

> Perhaps we could even go as far as saying "base >= 3.0" is equivalent to
> "base == 3.0.*".  i.e. if you don't supply an upper bound, then we'll give
> you a conservative one.  I wonder how much stuff would break if we did that.

this looks reasonable for any package yjat follows versioning policy
since changing major number means that anything in api may change

you may use this as "theoretical" foundation for such trick :)  of
course in the future it will be great if people will start to use
intervals with both high and low bounds

Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin at

More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list