On 26 February 2014 23:25, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr@gnu.org> wrote:
> On 2014-02-26 at 13:09:37 +0100, Michael Snoyman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> +1. If we're discussing PVP changes, the other one I'd like to propose is:
>>
>> Don't include upper bounds on base, template-haskell, or other libraries
>> which cannot be upgraded, unless you know with certainty that your package
>> will not compile with those other versions. Motivation:
>>
>> * The bounds will never help cabal choose a better build plan.
>
> ...this assumes (as I mentioned in an earlier post) that GHC is never
> going to ship again with two versions of base (like in the past with
> base3/4). For that case, we'd want at least something like `base < 5` as
> upper bound in place (with the policy that `5.*` will only ever be
> reached if something really disruptive is done to `base`)

Agreed; there were a few packages that failed on Gentoo because the
author stated that it worked with "base < 5", even though they'd only
tested it with cabal-install and at the time it was defaulting to
base-3 (though using the runhaskell Setup.hs method used the "best
version").

That might be reasonable for the other such libraries though.  But to
be specific: are we including libraries such as bytestring,
containers, etc. as those that can be upgraded or cannot be upgraded?