planning for ghc-6.10.1 and hackage
Bulat Ziganshin
bulat.ziganshin at gmail.com
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 gmail.com
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users
mailing list