Re: [Haskell-cafe] Hackage inconsistent? (pandoc.cabal in 1.13.1)

On 30 October 2014 23:00, Sven Panne wrote:

2014-10-30 12:08 GMT+01:00 Tom Ellis :

...

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:01:09PM +0100, Peter Simons wrote:

...

...

We could as well say that Hackage generates

ap-1.0.0.0.1 ap-1.0.0.0.2 -- for the next dependency fix

That would be one possible solution, yes. Personally, I think these kind of version numbers are a bit silly, so I would prefer to append a tag, but I don't feel strongly about that.

How would this be any different from just uploading a new version with an updated cabal file?

From a user perspective it wouldn't be different and it shouldn't be. From a maintainer/trustee POV it's just a convenience feature, which is OK. Having said that, I think that automatically bumping the minor version number would be the right thing to do. Breaking reproducible builds is a horrible idea.

I don't think you should bump the minor version (as in the fourth version field) as it doesn't affect any actual changes that may have taken place in SCM, etc. Of course, arbitrarily just adding a fifth field will only work if the package is following PVP (i.e. using 4 version fields), and AFAIK there's no way to explicitly know/state that. -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com