raising Pugs' minimum GHC to 6.4.1 from 6.4.0
Darren Duncan
package form for a full 4 months now, since mid-September.
Are there any platforms for which 6.4.0 packages exist but not 6.4.1 packages?
Will anyone be messed up if 6.4.1 becomes a minimum hard requirement?
Its not typically like there are system bundled versions to be
concerned with, unlike perl 5 where it can be a not install vs
install; with ghc its install A vs install B.
Assuming no trouble, I propose that 6.4.1 is the minimum dependency
for Pugs 6.28.0, if not 6.2.11 as well, the latter probably due any
day now.
-- Darren Duncan
Darren Duncan
>On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:52:55PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
>> Assuming no trouble, I propose that 6.4.1 is the minimum dependency
>> for Pugs 6.28.0, if not 6.2.11 as well, the latter probably due any
>> day now.
>
>
>Jesse
Then we don't have to bump the gcc dependency down.
AFAIK, gcc is pre-installed on many systems, but ghc is not.
ghc 6.4.1 works with any gcc version, both 3.3 and 4.0, so users with
either gcc installed, the newer ghc will just work.
ghc 6.4.0 works only with gcc 3.3, so those people that get 4.0 by
default will have to downgrade to work with 6.4.0.
If ghc 6.4.1 is required, then users don't have to worry about what
version their gcc is.
As Luqui pointed out, the only people that my proposal would make
more work for is those with 6.4.0 already installed.
They would have installed that explicitly, and so knowing how to do
that, installing 6.4.1 explicitly is a well known path.
And people that use the recommended (by ghc folks) of using the
binary packages, this will only take a few minutes time.
So we get simpler install situation over all, and pugs can be free to
exploit 6.4.1 additions if it wants to, and not work around 6.4.0
bugs.
-- Darren Duncan
Jesse
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 07:52:55PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Assuming no trouble, I propose that 6.4.1 is the minimum dependency
> for Pugs 6.28.0, if not 6.2.11 as well, the latter probably due any
> day now.
What's the benefit of bumping the ghc dependency up?
Jesse
>
> -- Darren Duncan
>
--
Luke Palmer
> What's the benefit of bumping the ghc dependency up?
Well, if it helps, ghc-6.4.1 was a bugfix release from ghc-6.4.0, so
we're not getting any new features.
Luke
Luke Palmer
> ghc 6.4.0 works only with gcc 3.3, so those people that get 4.0 by
> default will have to downgrade to work with 6.4.0.
Wait---so if your proposal isn't effected, then people will be unable
to upgrade to ghc 6.4.1, and will instead have to downgrade to gcc
3.3?
> As Luqui pointed out, the only people that my proposal would make
> more work for is those with 6.4.0 already installed.
Oh, thank you for distorting my argument like that.
Yes, that's true, the only people that your proposal makes more work
for is those with 6.4.0 already installed. But my point was that it
doesn't make it less work for _anybody_.
Luke
Audrey Tang
> ghc 6.4.1 works with any gcc version, both 3.3 and 4.0, so users with
> either gcc installed, the newer ghc will just work.
>
> ghc 6.4.0 works only with gcc 3.3, so those people that get 4.0 by
> default will have to downgrade to work with 6.4.0.
I've just committed r8839, so people with the GHC 6.4.0+GCC4.0+OSX10.4
combination now see this:
GHC 6.4.0 cannot work with GCC 4.0 on Mac OS X.
Please download the GHC 6.4.1 installer from http://haskell.org/ghc/.
(Alternatively, use "sudo gcc_select 3.3" to pick an earlier version
of GCC, or set the CC environment variable to "/usr/bin/gcc-3.3".)
That should make it pretty clear that we prefer upgrade (of GHC) over
downgrade (of GCC), and so we can retain GHC 6.4.0 compatibility for a
while (at least until GHC 6.6 comes out.)
Audrey