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

cabal-install: Bump time upper bound to allow 1.12 #7870

Closed
wants to merge 0 commits into from

Conversation

Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

@Mikolaj Mikolaj commented Dec 13, 2021

This bumps time's upper bound in all our code and it's tested in this PR by forcing the time package version (otherwise the one from GHC is used).

Please don't backport this (Cabal bump from #7863 was already backported for GHC hackers' convenience in #7869).

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member Author

Mikolaj commented Dec 13, 2021

Testing fails, because https://hackage.haskell.org/package/tree-diff exludes newer time packages:

time (==1.4.* || >=1.5.0.1 && <1.6 || >=1.6.0.1 && <1.7 || >=1.8.0.2 && <1.9 || >=1.9.3 && <1.10)

@phadej: do you think we could bump the time bound to < 1.13 [edit: in tree-diff]?

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member Author

Mikolaj commented Jan 4, 2022

@Mergifyio rebase

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Jan 4, 2022

rebase

✅ Branch has been successfully rebased

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member Author

Mikolaj commented Jan 5, 2022

Now it's blocked by hackage-security, so I fixed the bound there. TODO: revisit this PR when I release hackage-security.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member Author

Mikolaj commented Jan 5, 2022

Perhaps let's also apply this dep, taken from current Cabal (the second alternative is missing in cabal-install):

text         (>= 1.2.3.0  && < 1.3) || (>= 2.0 && < 2.1),

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member Author

Mikolaj commented Jan 14, 2022

Let's revisit once #7907 is merged.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member Author

Mikolaj commented Jan 20, 2022

Huh, github decided to close it for me (after some accidental pushes). Perhaps it's for the best, but let's revisit anyway.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member Author

Mikolaj commented Jul 28, 2022

Just a note that this has been done by somebody already somewhere (it's on master branch as of now).

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.

1 participant