Cheers Simon, thanks for looking at this. On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 10:43 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > Duncan Coutts wrote: > > I'm concerned that there are many different versions of Cabal "1.1.4". > > The version that GHC 6.4.2 is now shipping is actually a very old > > version of Cabal 1.1.4. > > Sorry, this is my fault: I just copied the CVS version of Cabal into > 6.4.2, and didn't bump the version on the mainline at the same time. > > I've now bumped the mainline Cabal to 1.1.5, and I've tagged the version > in 6.4.2 with the tag "shipped in GHC 6.4.2". That version is circa Jan > 15, 2006. I didn't copy Cabal/test in 6.4.2, so you will see some > differences in there if you 'diff -cr', BTW.
Ok. > So we have a deadzone between Jan 15 and now (last commit was Apr 11) > where the mainline code claimed to be 1.1.4 and exposed various > different APIs from the one shipped in 6.4.2. But there were no actual > releases of that code, fortunately. > > The right way to proceed, I think, is to claim that the Cabal shipped in > 6.4.2 *is* 1.1.4. That seems quite a reasonable way to proceed. The version shipped with GHC will have a wider user base and the people who downloaded the 1.1.4 version from the Cabal darcs repo knew it was a dev version. > Isaac; is that ok with you? Can you put up a tarball > of that tag for the Gentoo guys to use? That'd be great. > > Is there anything we can do for the next release of GHC/Cabal so that we > > don't end up with this mess? > > Yes, I should coordinate with Isaac more closely next time, and we > should coincide the GHC release with a Cabal release. Either that, or > GHC should be using a branch of the Cabal repository that corresponds to > a recent stable version. Ok Great. Thanks again. Duncan _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
