simonmarhaskell: > Several good points have been raised in this thread, and while I might not > agree with everything, I think we can all agree on the goal: things > shouldn't break so often. > > So rather than keep replying to individual points, I'd like to make some > concrete proposals so we can make progress. > > 1. Document the version numbering policy. > > We should have done this earlier, but we didn't. The proposed policy, for > the sake of completeness is: x.y where: > > x changes ==> API changed > x constant but y changes ==> API extended only > x and y constant ==> API is identical > > further sub-versions may be added after the x.y, their meaning is > package-defined. Ordering on versions is lexicographic, given multiple > versions that satisfy a dependency Cabal will pick the latest. > > 2. Precise dependencies. > > As suggested by various people in this thread: we change the convention so > that dependencies must specify a single x.y API version, or a range of > versions with an upper bound. Cabal or Hackage can refuse to accept > packages that don't follow this convention (perhaps Hackage is a better > place to enforce it, and Cabal should just warn, I'm not sure).
I agree. >= 1.0 isn't viable in the long term. Rather, a specific list, or bounded range of tested versions seems likely to be more robust. -- Don _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
