It alleviates the common case, but it doesn't resolve the scenario where someone put a hard bound in for a reason due to a known change in semantics or known incompatibility.


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Daniel Trstenjak <daniel.trstenjak@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:23:44AM -0800, Gregory Collins wrote:
> Someone released a tool to attempt to do this a couple of days ago ---
> I haven't tried it yet but surely with a bit of group effort we can
> improve these tools so that they really fast and easy to use.

That's an amazing tool ... ;)

> Of course, people who want to follow PVP are also going to need tooling to make
> sure their programs still build in the future because so many people have
> broken the policy in the past -- that's where proposed kludges like "cabal
> freeze" are going to come in.

If I understood it correctly, then cabal >1.19 supports the option '--allow-newer'
to be able to ignore upper bounds, which might solve several of the issues here,
so upper bounds could be set but still ignored if desired.


Greetings,
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries