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

Please, provide proper bounds to packages #175

Closed
Anton-Latukha opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 1 comment
Closed

Please, provide proper bounds to packages #175

Anton-Latukha opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 1 comment

Comments

@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Contributor

During bisecting in hnix arrived to that hnix-store-* do not have any bounds with packages, so hnix-store-core 0.2.0.0 thinks it supports saltine 0.2, wich it does not, so needed to go back & add revisions to a number of old hnix-store-core versions.

Upon the next release of hnix-store-{core,remote}, would ask to add at least appear bounds to the packages.

cabal gen-bounds
...
containers           >= 0.6.5 && < 0.7,
mtl                  >= 2.2.2 && < 2.3,
attoparsec           >= 0.14.4 && < 0.15,
bytestring           >= 0.10.12 && < 0.11,
hashable             >= 1.3.5 && < 1.4,
text                 >= 1.2.4 && < 1.3,
base16-bytestring    >= 1.0.2 && < 1.1,
base64-bytestring    >= 1.2.1 && < 1.3,
cereal               >= 0.5.8 && < 0.6,
cryptonite           >= 0.29 && < 0.30,
memory               >= 0.16.0 && < 0.17,
directory            >= 1.3.6 && < 1.4,
filepath             >= 1.4.2 && < 1.5,
time                 >= 1.9.3 && < 1.10,
unix                 >= 2.7.2 && < 2.8,
lifted-base          >= 0.2.3 && < 0.3,
monad-control        >= 1.0.3 && < 1.1,
vector               >= 0.12.3 && < 0.13,
relude               >= 1.0.0 && < 1.1,
unordered-containers >= 0.2.16 && < 0.3,
saltine              >= 0.2.0 && < 0.3
@sorki
Copy link
Member

sorki commented Nov 19, 2023

The saltine bound was added in 7186850 as otherwise it tempted to fall back to older version due to bounds in some & profunctors. Couple more sensible are in place but a lot of the packages we depend on are well established, probably won't break their interface ever and if they do the CI will let us know. Thanks for the reminder!

Interestingly cryptonite is now archived with no replacement in sight so maybe it's time to revisit #66 😰

@sorki sorki closed this as completed Nov 19, 2023
sorki added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 20, 2023
sorki added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 20, 2023
sorki added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 20, 2023
sorki added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 20, 2023
sorki added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 20, 2023
sorki added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 20, 2023
sorki added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 20, 2023
sorki added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 20, 2023
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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants