On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:27:11AM +0200, Udo Stenzel wrote:
> - Rename 'base' ASAP and especially before GHC 6.8 comes out, call it
> 'foundation' or something else. If you want to keep the name 'base',
> make sure Cabal considers 'base-2.x' a different library than
> 'base-3.x'.
> - Provid
Udo Stenzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[incompatibilities between recent libraries/cabal/ghc]
I'm installing a GHC-6.8 snapshot, and compiling a bunch of libraries
I need in the process (HTTP, HXT, and binary). No show-stoppers, but
a lot of rewriting of the dependencies. At least ghc will t
Ketil Malde wrote:
+1 to renaming the new base, and have 'base' be a compatibility
package incorporating 'containers', 'array', etc, with compatible
interfaces. (Versioning isn't as good, I think, because it's too
common to specify just 'base' without any version. At least, I know I
do.)
Ther
Udo Stenzel wrote:
- Provide a known good cabal. Make sure it installs on GHC 6.6 and 6.4.
Cabal 1.2 works all the way back to GHC 6.2. The recommended way to build
new packages with an old GHC will be to upgrade Cabal first.
- Start fixing dependencies.
In progress for the GHC 6.8.1 r
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> +1 to renaming the new base, and have 'base' be a compatibility
>> package incorporating 'containers', 'array', etc
> There's currently no (easy) way to make a package that just re-exports
> the contents of other packages.
Presumably the hard way would
Udo Stenzel wrote:
> - install exactly one version of cabal, 1.1.6.2, and *remove* all
> others,
> - ask ghc-pkg for the description of base, then edit Data.ByteString out
> of that and re-register it,
I forgot, I also tried tar-1.0 on GHC 6.6, and had the same problem
there. Even after updat
Simon Marlow wrote:
> >- Provide a known good cabal. Make sure it installs on GHC 6.6 and 6.4.
>
> Cabal 1.2 works all the way back to GHC 6.2. The recommended way to build
> new packages with an old GHC will be to upgrade Cabal first.
Can it be installed by a user? Because I think my GHC 6.4
On Oct 13, 2007, at 20:35 , Udo Stenzel wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
- Refrain from renaming stuff. System.Posix is a fine name.
Who renamed it? It's still called System.Posix AFAIK.
tar references System.PosixCompat, which apparently comes from a
library
called unix-compat. I have no i
Bjorn Bringert wrote:
> The tar package uses System.PosixCompat from the unix-compat package
> to also work under non-posix systems (read Windows). This dependency
> is listed in the tar.cabal file (see http://hackage.haskell.org/
> packages/archive/tar/0.1/tar.cabal). System.Posix was never r
Hi Udo,
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:27:11AM +0200, Udo Stenzel wrote:
>
> - Provide a replacement configuration for GHC 6.6 and 6.4 (yes, that one
> is still alive!) that removes the conflict between 'base' and
> 'bytestring' and pretends to provide bytestring, containers, array,
> etc.
Peo
Ian Lynagh wrote:
> People interested in making it easy to use new versions of packages with
> old compiler releases can make a small script that installs empty Cabal
> packages called bytestring, containers, array, etc.
That completely misses the fact that bytestring cannot be upgraded, no
matter
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 05:19:31PM +0200, Udo Stenzel wrote:
> Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > People interested in making it easy to use new versions of packages with
> > old compiler releases can make a small script that installs empty Cabal
> > packages called bytestring, containers, array, etc.
>
> That
On Oct 14, 2007, at 12:48 , Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 05:19:31PM +0200, Udo Stenzel wrote:
Ian Lynagh wrote:
People interested in making it easy to use new versions of
packages with
old compiler releases can make a small script that installs empty
Cabal
packages called byt
- Provide a replacement configuration for GHC 6.6 and 6.4 (yes, that one
is still alive!) that removes the conflict between 'base' and
'bytestring' and pretends to provide bytestring, containers, array,
etc.
People interested in making it easy to use new versions of packages with
old compi
igloo:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2007 at 05:19:31PM +0200, Udo Stenzel wrote:
> > Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > > People interested in making it easy to use new versions of packages with
> > > old compiler releases can make a small script that installs empty Cabal
> > > packages called bytestring, containers, arra
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 01:27 +0200, Udo Stenzel wrote:
> Don Stewart wrote:
> > Since you're not using ghc 6.8, you should use binary 0.3 :)
>
> That was PC for "sorry, GHC 6.6 is no longer supported and don't even
> ask about 6.4"
As far as I can see, there's no good reason why binary, tar, etc c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Udo Stenzel wrote: [an entertaining report on cabal/ghc problems]
> => module "Data.ByteString.Base" not found
I also got stuck there when trying to build zlib-0.3
(prerequisite for cabal-install-0.3.0)
(with ghc-6.8.0.20070918)
I don't even know
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 01:00 +0200, Udo Stenzel wrote:
> Don Stewart wrote:
> > If I understand correctly, the main issue for Udo is simply that the
> > MonadFix instance is required by his code, and isn't available in binary
> > 0.3 -- the version to be used on earlier GHCs. Is that right Udo?
>
>
Don Stewart wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the main issue for Udo is simply that the
> MonadFix instance is required by his code, and isn't available in binary
> 0.3 -- the version to be used on earlier GHCs. Is that right Udo?
No, the issue is that nothing works. It turns out that I actuall
Duncan Coutts wrote:
> New tarball releases of Cabal-1.2.1, bytestring-0.9, binary-0.4.1, tar
> and others (zlib, bzlib, iconv) will appear on hackage in the next few
> days.
I just tried one of them, iconv. First it wants a recent cabal; that's
fine, I installed the darcs version. Then I get th
Duncan and I have started a wiki page to collect proposals for ways to
avoid or alleviate the pain from future package reorganisations.
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/PackageCompatibility
It's been helpful for me to write all this down, the issues seem much
clearer. However, I don't
21 matches
Mail list logo
