Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Enable containers 0.7 (ghc 9.10) #117

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

edsko
Copy link
Collaborator

@edsko edsko commented May 29, 2024

No description provided.

@kazu-yamamoto kazu-yamamoto self-requested a review May 29, 2024 23:26
Copy link
Owner

@kazu-yamamoto kazu-yamamoto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess it's better to remove the upper bound in this case.

@edsko
Copy link
Collaborator Author

edsko commented May 30, 2024

I don't understand..?

@edsko
Copy link
Collaborator Author

edsko commented May 30, 2024

I mean, I can remove the upper bound if you like, or set it to something really high (otherwise Hackage will not accept the package at all), but it's not an automatic given that http2 will continue to work with each new major version (which, by definition, can introduce breaking changes)?

@kazu-yamamoto
Copy link
Owner

I have suffered from the major version up of bytestring.
My packages do not hit the breaking changes but I needed to modify their cabal files.
I guess that containers follows the same pattern.
So, I would like to simply remove the upper bound.

@edsko
Copy link
Collaborator Author

edsko commented May 30, 2024

Removing the upper bound altogether will cause Hackage to reject the package. Will I set it to >= 0.6 < 1, similar to what you do with base (>= 4.9 < 5)?

@kazu-yamamoto
Copy link
Owner

I would like to remove the upper bound only for containers.
I don't think the change results in a reject from Hackage.
But you don't like this approach, >= 0.6 < 1 is acceptable.

@edsko
Copy link
Collaborator Author

edsko commented May 30, 2024

Oh, maybe you are right, I just checked, and it's a warning only...? 🤔 Only if it is base it is an actual reject..? Ok, I learned something new today :) Will fix.

Copy link
Owner

@kazu-yamamoto kazu-yamamoto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now LGTM

kazu-yamamoto added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 12, 2024
@kazu-yamamoto
Copy link
Owner

Rebased and merged.

@edsko edsko deleted the edsko/ghc-9.10 branch August 28, 2024 06:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants