archlinux v0.3.5 and cabal2arch v0.7.6
Hi guys, I have released the current state of archlinux and cabal2arch on Hackage, but not yet on AUR so that we have the chance to test the new release a little. In a couple of days, I'd like to re-generate all our PKGBUILD files with the current version of the tool chain to ensure that the files are consistent, i.e. that ${_hkgname} is available, etc. IMHO, the next step after that is to set --enable-shared for libraries. Take care, Peter
On 04/11/10 17:22, Peter Simons wrote:
Hi guys,
I have released the current state of archlinux and cabal2arch on Hackage, but not yet on AUR so that we have the chance to test the new release a little.
In a couple of days, I'd like to re-generate all our PKGBUILD files with the current version of the tool chain to ensure that the files are consistent, i.e. that ${_hkgname} is available, etc.
IMHO, the next step after that is to set --enable-shared for libraries.
This is a minor point, but is the new version of archlinux (0.3.5) really API compatible with the previous version (0.3.4)? If the answer is 'no', then the never version ought to be 0.4 (or 0.4.0). (Actually I suspect that I made a mistake already when releasing 0.3.4, it should probably have been 0.4 to signal the changes in the API back then.) I would also argue that cabal2arch is bumped to 0.8 (or 0.8.0) to clearly mark that the UI has changed and isn't compatible with the previous version (0.7.5). /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Hi Magnus,
This is a minor point, but is the new version of archlinux (0.3.5) really API compatible with the previous version (0.3.4)?
yes, I believe it is. I certainly tried to make all changes in a backwards compatible manner.
If the answer is 'no', then the newer version ought to be 0.4 (or 0.4.0). [...] I would also argue that cabal2arch is bumped to 0.8 (or 0.8.0) to clearly mark that the UI has changed and isn't compatible with the previous version (0.7.5).
Yes, I think a major version bump is in order simply because there have been plenty of changes to both archlinux and cabal2arch. How about bumping the version number for both packages to 1.0? They appear to be well out of beta state, so it feels like we should have an 1.x release. Take care, Peter
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:59, Peter Simons
Hi Magnus,
> This is a minor point, but is the new version of archlinux (0.3.5) really > API compatible with the previous version (0.3.4)?
yes, I believe it is. I certainly tried to make all changes in a backwards compatible manner.
> If the answer is 'no', then the newer version ought to be 0.4 (or 0.4.0). > [...] I would also argue that cabal2arch is bumped to 0.8 (or 0.8.0) to > clearly mark that the UI has changed and isn't compatible with the previous > version (0.7.5).
Yes, I think a major version bump is in order simply because there have been plenty of changes to both archlinux and cabal2arch. How about bumping the version number for both packages to 1.0? They appear to be well out of beta state, so it feels like we should have an 1.x release.
Yes, I'd say go for it :-) Remy, as the other main contributor nowadays (besides Peter), do you have any objections? /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
participants (3)
-
Magnus Therning -
Peter Simons -
Rémy Oudompheng