Conversation
|
Under what conditions is the new |
|
@vdukhovni it's an automatic flag, Cabal solver will figure it out depending on a required build plan. |
|
So like the |
|
Should any of the tests insist on the flag being set? Or does that already happen automatically for some of them, based on their extant "build plan"? (By tests here I mean CI runs) |
I've never done this sort of stuff, so I'm not sure about all the consequences. What exactly caused grief? |
Yeah, should probably add that. |
See haskell/cabal#8370. A downstream package can end up with a build plan containing both That said, I think we are in a better position than |
|
Yeah, packages that want to work across many GHC versions and use We may need a better migration guide. |
|
I'm a bit concerned about the flag being inappropriately chosen by the solver, causing issues similar to what I see with older If the GHC team is on the verge of cutting 9.6.4, I'd actually prefer to not include this change so late in the process of creating a bug-fix GHC release. It should instead appear in a future 9.10.1 release, with lots of previous CI runs. |
No description provided.