Gearing up (again) for the next release: 2014.2.0.0

[Johan Tibell]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> The packages in the HP still needs upper bounds as the user can install
>> packages that require newer versions of packages that are in the platform
>> and a lack of upper bounds in the platform packages would cause cabal to
>> incorrectly try the HP version instead of installing a newer version,
>> causing a build failure.
>>
>>
> I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying. Yes, the tls package could
> still be installed by someone who's not using the Haskell Platform, and
> then all the same reasons for having upper bounds apply. But I'm not sure
> how adding tls to the HP would somehow make this problem worse, which I
> *think* is what you're implying. Can you clarify?
>

I might be missing some context but I was trying to say that packages in
the HP still need to have PVP compliant (upper) bounds or they might affect
building of the same package outside the PVP (assuming that package has
bounds). Put in another way, we still need bounds on the packages in the HP
even if they're frozen wrt each other.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140409/6d6912a1/attachment.html>