27 Apr
2020
27 Apr
'20
6:32 a.m.
Am 27.04.20 um 12:04 schrieb Daniel Gröber: > I'd really like to get to the root of the problem here because the way > Cabal format evolution works we really want people being able to use newer > versions with older GHCs. If I specify "cabal-version: 2.2" I get: >cabal build --enable-tests --disable-optimization --with-compiler=/opt/ghc/8.0.2/bin/ghc Resolving dependencies... Build profile: -w ghc-8.0.2 -O0 In order, the following will be built (use -v for more details): - darcs-2.14.3 (lib:darcs, exe:darcs, test:darcs-test) (first run) Warning: darcs.cabal: Unknown fields: autogen-modules (line 363) Fields allowed in this section: exposed-modules, reexported-modules, required-signatures, exposed-signatures, exposed, buildable, build-tools, build-depends, cpp-options, cc-options, ld-options, pkgconfig-depends, frameworks, extra-framework-dirs, c-sources, js-sources, default-language, other-languages, default-extensions, other-extensions, extensions, extra-libraries, extra-ghci-libraries, extra-lib-dirs, includes, install-includes, include-dirs, hs-source-dirs, other-modules, ghc-prof-options, ghcjs-prof-options, ghc-shared-options, ghcjs-shared-options, ghc-options, ghcjs-options, jhc-options, hugs-options, nhc98-options Configuring darcs-2.14.3... setup: This package description follows version 2.2 of the Cabal specification. This tool only supports up to version 1.24.2.0. The warning is okay, I get that in any case, but the last line is an error. The problem here seems to be that we have a custom Setup.hs. BTW, the "cabal-version:" has been added precisely to allow forward compatibility, so that a newer cabal version can still handle the old syntax. See https://www.haskell.org/cabal/users-guide/developing-packages.html#pkg-field-cabal-version >> It seems hackage allows me to change the package description in a >> revision. So I could make a revision that adds a line or two to the >> package description to point out the difference between the license >> displayed by hackage and the one intended. > > Honestly if you have appropriate GPL headers in your source files anyone > who cares about the distinction between v2-only and v2-or-later will be > able to tell what's going on. A comment sure couldn't hurt though. Agreed, so I guess this is what I'll do then. Cheers Ben