[darcs-devel] [patch1661] give FileUUID some love

[Ben Franksen]

Am 19.03.2018 um 13:17 schrieb Guillaume Hoffmann:
> Yes, we are currently trying to make a 2.14 release, so I would rather not
> have fancy printing of unused hunks (for now) and i would rather have a
> Darcs that is buildable without problems on the range of GHC and Cabal
> versions that we are supposed to support.

Who tells us which versions of ghc and cabal we are supposed to support?

I would love to support a wide range of versions of both cabal and ghc
but they both don't make it easy.

I would have liked to continue support for ghc-7-10.3, for a while at
least, but no, I am being forced to upgrade. Now I made a change that is
needed for cabal-2.1 to work and even tested that this works with
ghc-8.0 and cabal-2.0 and I hear, no, we must support cabal-1.24.
Because that's what debian stable packages.

The release is a red herring. We have a release branch so we can pull
patches or even rollback single changes ad libitum.

> El lun., 19 de mar. de 2018 04:32, Gian Piero Carrubba <gpiero at rm-rf.it>
> escribió:
> 
>> * [Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 09:22:54PM +0000] Ben Franksen:
>>> What kind of trouble does it cause you? I have installed ghc-8.0.2 and
>>> could successfully build with cabal-2.1.0.0 (cabal new-build as well as
>>> cabal install --only-dependencies, then cabal build; for the latter I
>>> had to install happy from my distro).
>>
>> pretty-show>1.6.13 uses some field (do not remember which) that is not
>> understood by cabal<2.something (I thought it was OK with cabal 2, but
>> as per Guillame mail I assume it is not). I had to manually install
>> v1.6.13 for the build to complete (cabal 1.24).

Please go ahead, remove the dependency and replace use of ppShow with show.

>> Also, as of today, my system-installed cabal 1.24 complains about
>> "Unknown fields: autogen-modules", I assume because of [0].

Fine. Roll it back. I'll stop using cabal-head. But nobody will get me
to go back to cabal-1.24 which AFAIK doesn't even have new-build.

>> I guess the main concern is that Debian sid (unstable) ships
>> cabal-1.24.0.2, so these constraints could ban the next release of darcs
>> from Debian, at least for the moment.

This is... incredible. They don't have cabal-2 in testing? Why for
heaven's sake? And they would rather drop Darcs from the distro than
make a small one-line patch against it? I suppose we should thank Debian
on our knees for packaging Darcs at all. Any other distros with similar
demands? What about Redhat/Fedora?

Cheers
Ben