Gearing up (again) for the next release: 2014.2.0.0

[Michael Snoyman]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Erik Hesselink <hesselink at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Erik Hesselink <hesselink at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > 3. You have yet to demonstrate a single example of breakage to the HP
> >> > that
> >> > would be caused by including tls.
> >>
> >> I don't want to get involved in the arguments about the other
> >> technicalities, but we've had breakages with the tls suite of packages
> >> in the past due to lack of upper bounds. Here's one quoted from an
> >> email to Vincent Hanquez:
> >>
> >>   The problem was that tls 1.1.2 doesn't list an upper bound on its
> >> crypto-pubkey dependency, but
> >> doesn't build with the new 0.2.* releases.
> >
> > I'm not arguing about upper bounds in general. I don't dispute (and never
> > had!) that upper bounds can in many cases allow builds to succeed where
> they
> > would otherwise fail. I'm speaking specifically about the case of the
> > Haskell Platform, which makes all version bounds in the package itself
> > irrelevant by hard-coding exact versions of all dependencies.
>
> Ah, of course, that makes sense: all dependencies have to be included
> in the platform as well. Sorry for the confusion.
>
>
No worries, it's a confusing subject ;)

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140409/182f4902/attachment.html>