[Haskell-cafe] Hackage being too strict?

[John Goerzen]

On Tuesday 15 April 2008 10:53:03 pm Gwern Branwen wrote:
> On 2008.04.15 22:15:29 -0500, John Goerzen <jgoerzen at complete.org> 
scribbled 0.7K characters:
> > When I went to make my upload of MissingH 1.0.1, Hackage rejected it,
> > saying:
> >
> > Instead of 'ghc-options: -XPatternSignatures' use 'extensions:
> > PatternSignatures'
> >
> > It hadn't rejected MissingH 1.0.0, even though it had the same thing.
> >
> > Now, my .cabal file has this:
> >
> >  -- Hack because ghc-6.6 and the Cabal the comes with ghc-6.8.1
> >  -- does not understand the PatternSignatures extension.
> >  -- The Cabal that comes with ghc-6.8.2 does understand it, so
> >  -- this hack can be dropped if we require Cabal-Version: >=1.2.3
> >  If impl(ghc >= 6.8)
> >    GHC-Options: -XPatternSignatures
> >
> > which was contributed by Duncan Coutts.
> >
> > It seems arbitrary that Hackage would suddenly reject this valid
> > usage.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Doesn't strike me as being any more arbitrary than demanding a Build-type:
> field.

Well, that's perhaps a problem too.  It makes it difficult to produce 
a .cabal file that can both be parsed by GHC 6.6 and uploaded to Hackage.

>
> --
> gwern
> submiss mega Audiotel meta SUBACS JSOTF NMIC EIP RAID CRA