Different package authors have different policies, but if the use of a few #ifdefs allows compatibility with more ghc versions, I think most folks would consider that a win.
On Thursday, August 29, 2013, Jan Stolarek wrote: > I'm still not sure how to handle libraries that I modified with my primops > change (#6135): primitive and array. There is some discussion on the core > libraries commitee list and it seems that I'll have to further modify > primops, and thus primitive and array, before 7.8 is released. Should I > submit my patches to maintainers of these two libraries? Also, in order to > make updated versions of the libraries compatible with older versions of > GHC I would need to add some #ifdef pragmas. The question is whether we and > package maintainers want that compatibility or should we expect that newly > released versions of primitive and array will require at least 7.8 to run? > > Janek > > ----- Oryginalna wiadomość ----- > Od: "shelarcy" <shela...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > Do: "Herbert Valerio Riedel" <h...@gnu.org <javascript:;>> > DW: ghc-devs@haskell.org <javascript:;> > Wysłane: czwartek, 29 sierpień 2013 12:24:55 > Temat: Re: Current state of ghc boot lib versions vs. hackage > > Hello Herbert, > > I think that current GHC HEAD's primitive and vector are undesirable > version. > > Because: > > 1. GHC HEAD's primitive and vector are older than latest released > version. (You already pointed out that.) > 2. But ... GHC HEAD's primitive and vector have some changes from older > released version (to build with GHC HEAD). > 3. primitive HEAD and vector HEAD has some changes from latest release. > These are not same as above GHC HEAD's changes. > 4. We can't merge simd branch's primitive and vector changes before > merging primive HEAD and vector HEAD' changes. (Becuase simd branch's > primitive and vector depend on primitive HEAD and vector HEAD's changes.) > > By above reasons, I think that GHC HEAD should merge primitive HEAD and > vector HEAD's changes. > > > Best Regards, > > > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:56:08 +0900, Herbert Valerio Riedel <h...@gnu.org> > wrote: > > > > > I've compared what versions current GHC HEAD uses w/ vs. what's > > currently available on Hackage (see below); > > > > So currently, the following packages have newer versions available on > > hackage than are used in GHC HEAD: > > > > - binary > > - containers > > - primitive > > - time > > - vector > > > > In order to clarify a point that has been an issue in the past: > > > > Can it be assumed that the GHC 7.8 feature-freeze scheduled for 14 Sept > > 2013[1] is also the library version freeze deadline, by which upstream > > package authors shall submit new package versions they want to ship as > > GHC boot libs w/ GHC 7.8.1? (and thus should be given an "heads-up" asap) > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > package hackage GHC HEAD > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Cabal 1.18.0 == 1.18.0 > > array 0.4.0.1 < 0.4.0.2 > > base 4.6.0.1 < 4.7.0.0 > > bin-package-db 0.0.0.0 == 0.0.0.0 > > binary 0.7.1.0 > 0.7.0.0 > > bytestring 0.10.2.0 < 0.10.3.0 > > containers 0.5.2.1 > 0.5.0.0 > > deepseq 1.3.0.1 < 1.3.0.2 > > directory 1.2.0.1 == 1.2.0.1 > > dph-base 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1 > > (dph-lifted-base) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1 > > (dph-lifted-boxed) - 0.8.0.1 > > (dph-lifted-copy) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1 > > (dph-lifted-vseg) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1 > > (dph-prim-interface) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1 > > (dph-prim-par) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1 > > (dph-prim-seq) 0.7.0.1 < 0.8.0.1 > > filepath 1.3.0.1 < 1.3.0.2 > > (ghc) 7.6.3 < 7.7.20130826 > > ghc-prim 0.3.0.0 < 0.3.1.0 > > haskeline 0.7.0.3 < 0.7.0.4 > > (haskell2010)
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs