[Haskell-cafe] Cabal message problem.
daniel.is.fischer at googlemail.com
Thu Dec 16 16:23:17 CET 2010
On Thursday 16 December 2010 15:40:37, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On 16 December 2010 13:38, Daniel Fischer
> <daniel.is.fischer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > The problem is that without upper bounds, things will break a lot when
> > packages undergo API changes, but probably more often things will also
> > work with the new API. So with upper bounds, you prevent breakage at
> > the cost of preventing builds which would work.
> It's a tradeoff.
An unavoidable one, I think.
And just for the record, I'm in favour of upper bounds. As the default
behaviour, using known-to-work combinations of packages is the right thing.
> > Maybe a flag "ignore upper bounds and try with the latest" for cabal
> > would be a solution. Would that be hard to implement or easy?
> That suggestion has come up quite a few times. I think it's probably a
> good idea.
So, would it be hard or easy? If it's not too hard, someone might try to
More information about the Haskell-Cafe