On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 12:37 +0800, Conrad Parker wrote: > On 14 March 2013 22:53, Duncan Coutts <duncan.cou...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > I've been doing regression testing against hackage and I'm satisfied > > that the new parser matches close enough. I've uncovered all kinds of > > horrors with .cabal files in the wild relying on quirks of the old > > parser. I've made adjustments for most of them but I will be breaking a > > half dozen old packages > > When you say you've "made adjustments for" dodgy .cabal files in the > wild, do you mean that you'll send those maintainers patches that make > their cabal files less dodgy, or do you mean you've added hacks to > your parser to reproduce the quirky behaviour?
The latter, but the egregiousness of the hacks is actually not too bad in the end. I don't find it revolting. For the worst examples I didn't make adjustments and those ones will break. I think I've made a reasonable judgement about the where to draw the line between the two. I can look into generating warnings in those cases (which is probably better than me emailing them). Duncan _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel