On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Ian Lynagh <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:26:34AM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > > > > You mentioned in the ticket that we need to have base strictly following > > the PVP. That's true of course. I'm assured by the GHC hackers that > > they're committed to the PVP. The reason for bumping 4.0 -> 4.1 is being > > looked at but their first guess is that it was the change in GHC's > > finaliser semantics (which did indeed break a couple programs). > > The reason base's version was bumped from 4.0 to 4.1 is that there were > some changes that required it, according to the PvP, e.g. > GHC.Conc.signalHandlerLock > was removed. > > I don't know if there were any such changes in non-GHC.* modules, as I > stopped looking when I found the first change. > > For the future, one option would be to exclude GHC.* from the PvP > requirements, although then you have problems with any package which > uses GHC.*.
I don't think so as low level libraries like network must use GHC modules for functions like threadWaitRead. If network's dependencies don't follow PVP so can't network itself, etc. Cheers, Johan
_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
