[Haskell-cafe] Fwd: hackage compile failure with QuickCheck 2.5

Andres Löh andres at well-typed.com
Wed Jul 18 11:45:03 CEST 2012

> I'm talking about unattended automated builds, so tweaking isn't an
> option.  On the other hand breaking the package environment isn't so bad,
> because I'm throwing it away after each build.

I'm not convinced that we should try to build packages at any price.
If they're likely to cause problems in a standard environment on a
user machine, then isn't it better to see this reflected on Hackage?

>> So in short, no combination of flags will work in this case, I think.
>> Failure is the best option.
> Actually --force-reinstalls does work in this case, and this thread began
> with Levent being unhappy with the failure option for his package, so
> I'm tempted to use that flag on all hackage builds.

Does it produce a usable package and environment, or does it just
work, but leave everything broken? I agree that using
--force-reinstalls on Hackage might be an acceptable option, and it's
probably better than using --avoid-reinstalls by default. However, it
may still send the misleading message that a package "builds just
fine" when it practice it doesn't.


Andres Löh, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list