On Thursday 16 December 2010 15:40:37, Duncan Coutts wrote: > On 16 December 2010 13:38, Daniel Fischer > > <daniel.is.fisc...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > The problem is that without upper bounds, things will break a lot when > > packages undergo API changes, but probably more often things will also > > work with the new API. So with upper bounds, you prevent breakage at > > the cost of preventing builds which would work. > > It's a tradeoff.
An unavoidable one, I think. And just for the record, I'm in favour of upper bounds. As the default behaviour, using known-to-work combinations of packages is the right thing. > > Maybe a flag "ignore upper bounds and try with the latest" for cabal > > would be a solution. Would that be hard to implement or easy? > > That suggestion has come up quite a few times. I think it's probably a > good idea. So, would it be hard or easy? If it's not too hard, someone might try to implement it. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe