Re: [Haskell-cafe] Hackage being too strict?

On Tuesday 15 April 2008 10:53:03 pm Gwern Branwen wrote:

On 2008.04.15 22:15:29 -0500, John Goerzen scribbled 0.7K characters:

...

When I went to make my upload of MissingH 1.0.1, Hackage rejected it, saying:

Instead of 'ghc-options: -XPatternSignatures' use 'extensions: PatternSignatures'

It hadn't rejected MissingH 1.0.0, even though it had the same thing.

Now, my .cabal file has this:

-- Hack because ghc-6.6 and the Cabal the comes with ghc-6.8.1 -- does not understand the PatternSignatures extension. -- The Cabal that comes with ghc-6.8.2 does understand it, so -- this hack can be dropped if we require Cabal-Version: >=1.2.3 If impl(ghc >= 6.8) GHC-Options: -XPatternSignatures

which was contributed by Duncan Coutts.

It seems arbitrary that Hackage would suddenly reject this valid usage.

Thoughts?

Doesn't strike me as being any more arbitrary than demanding a Build-type: field.

Well, that's perhaps a problem too. It makes it difficult to produce a .cabal file that can both be parsed by GHC 6.6 and uploaded to Hackage.

-- gwern submiss mega Audiotel meta SUBACS JSOTF NMIC EIP RAID CRA