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

Use git version of Cabal to build stack / release version? #3550

Closed
mgsloan opened this issue Nov 4, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

Use git version of Cabal to build stack / release version? #3550

mgsloan opened this issue Nov 4, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@mgsloan
Copy link
Contributor

mgsloan commented Nov 4, 2017

See these issues: #3549 haskell/cabal#4863

Released Cabal has a bug that makes it so that showGenericPackageDescription drops quite a few fields. Should we build stack-1.6 against a version of the Cabal library which has a fix? If we do that, should modify the warning message I added here: 9f06ccf

Noted by phadej here:

By

Any way of pick, you have to make sure to reject cabal-version: 2.1 and later, as their spec is open atm.
I meant you should reject .cabal files with too new Cabal spec version, there are features in master which may not be in their final form.

@mgsloan mgsloan added this to the P0: Blocking release milestone Nov 4, 2017
@snoyberg
Copy link
Contributor

Once #3593 is merged in, I believe this bug will only strike when we're using pvp-bounds. We already have a mounting list of concerns around pvp-bounds, such as potentially being out-of-date with the new "soft bound" changes to the PVP. Given all of this, my recommendation is to add some comments to the release notes and documentation explaining that, due to issues with Cabal, pvp-bounds will likely not work, and recommend against using them. I don't believe it's wise for us to release Stack with an unofficial version of Cabal, or start copy-pasting code to work around Cabal bugs unless we absolutely have to.

@mgsloan
Copy link
Contributor Author

mgsloan commented Nov 21, 2017

Makes sense to me, closing this

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants