Lose upper bounds like that cause quite a bit of issues. It's really best to use the revision system hackage has, like Zubin says.
-davean On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 6:40 AM Zubin Duggal <zu...@well-typed.com> wrote: > Hi, > > It is best only only allow versions that are known to compile. > Breaking changes in `base` might break the build otherwise. > In this case, as no other changes are needed, we don't need > a new release of `array`. A hackage revision of array-0.5.8.0, > bumping the base bound to allow base-4.21 will be sufficient. > > Along with this, I would appreciate if a commit bumping the bound > in the cabal file was also pushed to the repository, with an > appropriate tag like 0.5.8.0-r2 (as there already seems to be > an r1 revision). > > Thanks, > Zubin > > On 24/11/03 16:37, Lei Zhu wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I'm preparing the next `array` release for the coming ghc 9.12. > >The process seems boring because I just need to loosen the > >upper bound of the `base`, and then make a release. > > > >Shall I have a larger range like `base < 5` or are there any > >restriction in the `base`, so we have to bump the version > >one by one? > > > >Thanks, > >Lei Zhu > > >_______________________________________________ > >ghc-devs mailing list > >ghc-devs@haskell.org > >http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
