[Haskell-cafe] Hackage inconsistent? (pandoc.cabal in 1.13.1)

[Ivan Lazar Miljenovic]

On 30 October 2014 23:00, Sven Panne <svenpanne at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-10-30 12:08 GMT+01:00 Tom Ellis
> <tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2013 at jaguarpaw.co.uk>:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:01:09PM +0100, Peter Simons wrote:
>>>  > We could as well say that Hackage generates
>>>  >
>>>  >   ap-1.0.0.0.1
>>>  >   ap-1.0.0.0.2  -- for the next dependency fix
>>>
>>> That would be one possible solution, yes. Personally, I think these kind
>>> of version numbers are a bit silly, so I would prefer to append a tag,
>>> but I don't feel strongly about that.
>>
>> How would this be any different from just uploading a new version with an
>> updated cabal file?
>
> From a user perspective it wouldn't be different and it shouldn't be.
> From a maintainer/trustee POV it's just a convenience feature, which
> is OK. Having said that, I think that automatically bumping the minor
> version number would be the right thing to do. Breaking reproducible
> builds is a horrible idea.

I don't think you should bump the minor version (as in the fourth
version field) as it doesn't affect any actual changes that may have
taken place in SCM, etc.

Of course, arbitrarily just adding a fifth field will only work if the
package is following PVP (i.e. using 4 version fields), and AFAIK
there's no way to explicitly know/state that.

-- 
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com
http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com