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

Our CI needs to stop using cabal 3.4, because it fails with new autoconf and prevents the actual branches being tested #7708

Closed
Mikolaj opened this issue Oct 7, 2021 · 6 comments

Comments

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Oct 7, 2021

See #7707.

We should probably switch to 3.6.2 as soon as it's released.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member Author

Mikolaj commented Oct 7, 2021

A temporary measure suggested by @phadej is to add constraints: network < 3.1.2.3 to our code so that our CI can work again at all. However, we should remove the constraint as soon as we switch to 3.6.2 so that we actually test it. Ideally, we'd have this constraint when building with 3.4, but remove it when testing the new cabal just built, e.g., in dogfood mode, compiling network and all other cabal deps with new cabal.

@jneira
Copy link
Member

jneira commented Oct 7, 2021

a cabal.project.local with the constraint could be generated on the fly in the ci workflow yaml file

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member Author

Mikolaj commented Oct 7, 2021

That's a nice hack. But @hasufell managed to devise and test and emergency measure making network compilable again without alienating any users, so let's hope this can be pushed through ASAP and we can punt with CI update until 3.6.2 is out.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member Author

Mikolaj commented Oct 8, 2021

We ended up with the hack (at least on branch 3.6. for release project file) and deprecated bad network package and fixed new network package. When 3.6.2 is out, let's sort it all out.

@jneira
Copy link
Member

jneira commented Feb 16, 2022

@Mikolaj maybe we close this as it does not reproduce in master and we will not release more 3.6series?

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member Author

Mikolaj commented Feb 16, 2022

Yes, you are right, it's been fixed in many ways now. Closing.

@Mikolaj Mikolaj closed this as completed Feb 16, 2022
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