On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tib...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Erik Hesselink <hessel...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> tl;dr: Breakages without upper bounds are annoying and hard to solve for >> package consumers. With upper bounds, and especially with sandboxes, >> breakage is almost non-existent. >> >> I don't see how things break with upper bounds, at least in the presence >> of sandboxes. If all packages involved follow the PVP, a build that worked >> once, will always work. Cabal 0.10 and older had problems here, but 0.14 >> and later will always find a solution to the dependencies if there is one >> (if you set max-backjumps high enough). >> > > The "breakage" people are talking about with regards to upper bounds is > that every time a new version of a dependency comes out, packages with > upper bounds can't compile with it, even if they would without the upper > bound. For example, the version number of base is bumped with almost every > GHC release, yet almost no packages would actually break to the changes > that caused that major version number to go up. > Yes, this is why I talk about living on the bleeding edge, and shifting the burden from package maintainers to package users. And I believe the last base changes included a change to 'catch' which would have broken a lot of packages. The Num changes also caused a lot of code changes, and there were probably more I don't remember. Erik
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
