Working with GHC HEAD

Folks, I was trying to see what GHC head was like, but I've run into a few snags compiling packages. My existing binary for cabal-install can install quite a few packages, but then starts giving me strange errors eventually:

...

...

$ cabal --version cabal-install version 0.6.2 using version 1.6.0.1 of the Cabal library

$ ghc --version The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 6.11.20090724 $ cabal install zlib Resolving dependencies... Configuring zlib-0.5.2.0... ghc-stage2: /home/alatter/.ghc/x86_64-linux-6.11.20090724/package.conf:6:163: parse error on input `Nothing' cabal: Error: some packages failed to install: zlib-0.5.2.0 failed during the configure step. The exception was: exit: ExitFailure 1 <<< If I then do:

...

...

$ mv /home/alatter/.ghc/x86_64-linux-6.11.20090724/package.conf /home/alatter/.ghc/x86_64-linux-6.11.20090724/package.conf.back

$ cabal install zlib <<< Everything works great. After looking at the package.conf being complained about, the last line looks like so:

...

...

InstalledPackageInfo {package = PackageIdentifier {pkgName = PackageName "cpphs", pkgVersion = Version {versionBranch = [1,7], versionTags = []}}, license = LGPL Nothing, copyright = "2004-8, Malcolm Wallace", maintainer = "Malcolm Wallace ", author = ... <<<

Not the license field of the package info - we have "license = LGPL Nothing, copright ...". I thought that maybe since GHC head ships with the new dev version of Cabal, I need the dev version of cabal-install to properly install packages. However cabal-install (and most of the things I want to test out) require the 'network' package, which doesn't build against GHC head (System.Posix.Internals doesn't exist, and the functionality that 'network' uses from there now lives in GHC.IO.* and is much changed). So a few things: - Should I expect the stable version of cabal-install built against GHC 6.10 to work for head? Are the errors I'm getting expected? - Does anyone have a version of 'network' which builds against GHC head? I could bludgeon in the new GHC.IO.FD.FD type myself, but I'd thought I'd ask around first. Thanks, Antoine