Even though there's some risk bumping the Cabal version used in GHC, I think it would be worth it given that quite a few people have tripped over the bugs fixed in 1.16.0.3.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Iavor Diatchki <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > cabal-install 1.16.0 and 1.16.0.1 have some serious bugs that one encounters > rather quickly. For example, at work I wasted some time until I figured out > that cabal was generating a 'Paths_' module that does not compile. > Because of this, you can't even use it to install a newer version of itself, > where the problem is fixed: you have to manually bootstrap the new version > with the script! > > I think it would be quite unfortunate to make yet another GHC release that > ships with it, let alone add it to the Haskell platform. > > -Iavor > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Ian Lynagh <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 02:48:26PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: >> > >> > In the absence of a GHC-7.6.3, I'm not sure if it's practical for the HP >> > to bump the Cabal version. >> >> My proposal was 7.6.3 was a minimal release in a very short timeframe, >> to just fix #7748. Any additional changes introduce a possibility of >> regression. If you think that 7.6.2+1.16.0 would be OK, then it sounds >> like the fixes in 1.16.0.3 wouldn't be worth the risk (there are a >> number of GHC fixes that we won't be merging either, for the same >> reason). >> >> >> Thanks >> Ian >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ghc-devs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > > > _______________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
