[Haskell] Re: Trying to install binary-0.4
simonmarhaskell at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 08:42:41 EDT 2007
Ketil Malde wrote:
> Simon Marlow <simonmarhaskell at gmail.com> writes:
>> It's been helpful for me to write all this down, the issues seem much
>> clearer. However, I don't see an obviously best solution. For me
>> proposal 4.2 (see the wiki page) looks the most promising, but it
>> doesn't provide complete backwards compatibility, so I imagine there
>> will be people who disagree.
> The section "The problem of lax version dependencies" refers to
> "Solution 3", which doesn't seem to exists. Presumably "Solution 2" is meant?
> Wouldn't keeping "base-2.0" and rebranding "base-3.0" to
> "foundation-1.0" (which might be listed as "Solution 2.1") solve this
This is actually what proposal 4.2 is about. But note that in order to
keep base-2.0 around you need to either compile up a complete copy of it
and all the packages that depend on it (proposal 2, a non-starter IMO), or
allow package re-exports (proposal 4). Maintaining an exact replica of the
base-2.0 API is impractical (proposal 4.1), so what we'd actually have is
base-3.0 (proposal 4.2).
More information about the Libraries