Should HEAD of Cabal be depending on the new library world order?
Hi, all -
I just pulled a backlog of changes from the HEAD of the Cabal repo, and
now I can no longer build Cabal with ghc 6.6.1. This makes working with
it while running GHC 6.6.1 a bit awkward, so my poor cabal-rpm tool is
stuck in a limbo where I can't easily build it except against a manually
hacked copy of Cabal.
Is there any chance that we could bless some revision of Cabal that will
compile with GHC 6.6.1, give it a name, and then go back and resplit
things in preparation for future greatness?
If people see some value in this, I can do the necessary legwork.
bos:
Hi, all -
I just pulled a backlog of changes from the HEAD of the Cabal repo, and now I can no longer build Cabal with ghc 6.6.1. This makes working with it while running GHC 6.6.1 a bit awkward, so my poor cabal-rpm tool is stuck in a limbo where I can't easily build it except against a manually hacked copy of Cabal.
Is there any chance that we could bless some revision of Cabal that will compile with GHC 6.6.1, give it a name, and then go back and resplit things in preparation for future greatness?
If people see some value in this, I can do the necessary legwork.
This seems a bug, if anything. Standalone cabal shouldn't depend on packages not available on hackage. -- Don
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 07:52:10PM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Is there any chance that we could bless some revision of Cabal that will compile with GHC 6.6.1, give it a name, and then go back and resplit things in preparation for future greatness?
We already have this: The version that comes with 6.6.1 is blessed and named, and the HEAD contains future greatness. I assume there is some more recent change that you need, though? If you need something from the latest Cabal then there are 3 solutions: * Remove the "pretty, directory, old-time, process" deps from the .Cabal file locally * Install empty "pretty, directory, old-time, process" packages * Write a remove_new_libs in Cabal's Setup.hs, similar to the add_extra_libs in the base package. I'm not sure how you'd work out when this needs to be done, though. The first one is the easiest for a one-off, the second is easier if you're going to follow Cabal development and the last has the advantage of being something that can go into the repo and fix it for everyone. Thanks Ian
participants (3)
-
Bryan O'Sullivan -
dons＠cse.unsw.edu.au -
Ian Lynagh