search

haskell / cabal

Official upstream development repository for Cabal and cabal-install
https://haskell.org/cabal
Other
1.61k stars 690 forks source link

Cabal & cabal-install 3.10.2.0 release list #9008

Open Kleidukos opened 1 year ago

Kleidukos commented 1 year ago

The machine never stops.

3.10.2.0 is a patch release destined to cement the 3.10 series as the recommended cabal version in toolchain managers

See: cabal-install 3.10.2.0 board

Here are the bullet points for releasing 3.10.2.0 for Cabal & cabal-install.

Tasks

Cabal

cabal-install

Cabal-syntax

jessicah commented 1 year ago

Can #9006 get added to the list please? :)

fgaz commented 1 year ago

@jessicah this is a patch release so we can't backport that, sorry. It will be in 3.11 3.12 though :)

ulysses4ever commented 1 year ago

3.12 rather, but yeah that's right. 3.12 should appear with GHC 9.8 late summer / early fall i think

jessicah commented 1 year ago

@fgaz ah right, the new value in the OS type. When is late summer / early fall? It's blocking other pull requests I have due to CI failures with hackage not recognising Haiku as a valid OS value.

And a couple more I have in the pipeline (resolv, directory).

Mikolaj commented 1 year ago

@Kleidukos: how about https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/8952?

Mikolaj commented 1 year ago

@Kleidukos: another candidate, this one hacky, but urgent: https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/9048

Kleidukos commented 1 year ago

Regarding #8952 we just have to wait for it to be merged, for the backport to be created. Regarding #9048 I have no problems but I'd like confirmation from @gbaz that an upgrade of hackage central can be done shortly, before approving the cabal PR.

jessicah commented 1 year ago

@Kleidukos as stated elsewhere, the hackage PR doesn't appear to be strictly necessary to deploy the cabal check commit. I was able to upload packages to a test deploy without that PR merged.

nmeum commented 1 year ago

What's the progress on this? It seems that all TODOs in the issue description have been resolved but on Hackage 3.10.2.0 is still a package candidate. I maintain an Alpine Linux package for Cabal and I am currently wondering if we should update from 3.10.1.0 to 3.10.2.0.

Kleidukos commented 1 year ago

@nmeum Right now we're here: https://github.com/haskell/ghcup-metadata/pull/116

If you have an i386 Alpine system we would use a hand to create bindists (executable + plan.json).

nmeum commented 1 year ago

If you have an i386 Alpine system we would use a hand to create bindists (executable + plan.json).

I can run i386 binaries on my x86_64 system using chroots/docker/…, e.g. docker run -it i386/alpine:edge. What kind of help do you need? (:

Kleidukos commented 12 months ago

@nmeum actually since I have to sign them, I'd rather have a list of instructions so that I can supervise the process. :)

You say that there is a cabal package in i386 alpine? Can I install it as simply as apk add cabal then?

nmeum commented 12 months ago

You say that there is a cabal package in i386 alpine? Can I install it as simply as apk add cabal then?

No, sorry I didn't not mean to imply that. I assumed you wanted to bootstrap on i386 musl yourself (we only support x86_64 and aarch64 currently). At the moment, we do not have a GHC or Cabal package for i386. It is on my to-do list though.

fgaz commented 12 months ago

We probably want to fix #9277 too

Kleidukos commented 12 months ago

Thanks @fgaz, do you think you can provide a patch?

ulysses4ever commented 12 months ago

It's a matter of reviewing, merging and backporting https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/9278

Kleidukos commented 11 months ago

You say that there is a cabal package in i386 alpine? Can I install it as simply as apk add cabal then?

No, sorry I didn't not mean to imply that. I assumed you wanted to bootstrap on i386 musl yourself (we only support x86_64 and aarch64 currently). At the moment, we do not have a GHC or Cabal package for i386. It is on my to-do list though.

@nmeum Okay, how can we proceed from here then? :) Ideally until such infra (like a fully provisioned docker image) is readily available, the release mangers will need some instructions that they can follow until the docker cp.

nmeum commented 11 months ago

@nmeum Okay, how can we proceed from here then? :) Ideally until such infra (like a fully provisioned docker image) is readily available, the release mangers will need some instructions that they can follow until the docker cp.

I am sorry, I think there might be a misunderstanding here. I am just your friendly downstream packager, I am usually not involved in the creation of GHC bindists (AFAIK there is no Alpine i686 bindist), which I believe is what you are talking about? Sorry for confusion!