I've never had any problems installing newer bytestring versions. Unless you're using the GHC API, what is the problem? Regards, Erik On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Gregory Collins wrote:

If you want to try to support the last two or three haskell platform versions, you're committing to supporting GHC 7.4.x and bytestring 0.9.2.1 still. Debian stable still has 7.4.1. Plus there are one or two things that are in blaze-builder that people use that didn't make it into bytestring. So I agree with Kazu, I'm not ready to switch to bytestring builder yet --- especially since 0.10.0.2 was kind of botched.

I don't like preprocessor tricks here. If the public haddock docs on Hackage are built on a new machine but the user's machine is old, confusion is sure to result. You're forcing your downstream users to put in all of the same #ifdefs you used, too.

Sad though it may be I think we just have to wait a year until everyone's on a capable version of bytestring, then deprecate blaze-builder and make the switch as quickly as possible.

G

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Kazu Yamamoto wrote:

...

Hi Andrew,

...

Does anyone know whether blaze-builder is deprecated in favour of bytestring's new Builder module, or are they the same, or...

Recently I supported both blaze-builder and bytestring's Builder in "fast-logger". So, I would like to share my experience.

bytestring is tightly bound to GHC's version. GHC version 7.6.x is shipped with bytestring 0.10.0.2 while GHC version 7.8.x will be shipped with bytestring 0.10.4.0.

To my impression, bytestring's APIs are stable and good enough in bytestring 0.10.4.0. For instance, while bytestring 0.10.4.0 provides Data.ByteString.Builder and .Extra, bytestring 0.10.0.2 does not. (Please don't confuse them with Data.ByteString.Lazy.Builder.)

So, I think switching blaze-builder to bytestring's Builder is too early at this moment. But if you are interested, you can get ready for bytestring's Builder. You can use the following C's macro:

#if MIN_VERSION_bytestring(0,10,4)

For more information, please see the source of fast-logger.

--Kazu _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

-- Gregory Collins

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 09:34 +0100, Erik Hesselink wrote:

I've never had any problems installing newer bytestring versions. Unless you're using the GHC API, what is the problem?

Yeah, as Kazu said, right after installing the current **bytestring** cabal announced it would be downgrading it back to 0.10.0.2. Bit of a waste of my Saturday that. I think it was **text** but no need to point fingers, really; the end result was Cabal being quite uncompromising about it. AfC Sydney

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Johannes Waldmann wrote:

Erik Hesselink writes:

...

I've never had any problems installing newer bytestring versions. Unless you're using the GHC API, what is the problem?

Template Haskell.

(I guess this counts as "using the GHC API" somehow. But even if you are not, one of your dependencies may be doing it.)

See http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2014-January/003835.html

Template haskell doesn't depend on bytestring, and bytestring doesn't depend on template-haskell, so I don't see how that situation applies. Erik