Thanks as always.
If you wish, I will release a new version.

Thanks!

I would definitely appreciate a new Hackage release, as this will fix a pretty serious Windows-only issue.

Done.

Do we also want Hackage revisions for old versions of network (< 3.1.2.9)? Something like:

if impl(ghc >= 9.4.5) && os(windows)
  buildable: false

(see sol/hpack#548 (comment))

Do we also want Hackage revisions for old versions of network (< 3.1.2.9)? Something like:

if impl(ghc >= 9.4.5) && os(windows)
  buildable: false

@sol : Unfortunately, AFAIK, you cannot add a conditional in a revision, Hackage will refuse your revision attempt.
There also seems no precise way to use the base proxy for GHC, because both 9.4.4 and 9.4.5 ship with the same base version 4.17.1.0.

However, could we nevertheless constrain any network < 3.1.2.9 with base < 4.17, so that with any GHC >= 9.4 one has to use network >= 3.1.2.9? @RyanGlScott @kazu-yamamoto

@andreasabel would doing that (constraining the base version indiscriminately) potentially break existing freeze files? Or does cabal ignore revisions when there is a freeze file (as it probably should)?

@andreasabel would doing that (constraining the base version indiscriminately) potentially break existing freeze files? Or does cabal ignore revisions when there is a freeze file (as it probably should)?

Sorry, I don't know, I do not use cabal freeze (as it does not support multi-GHC settings).

Freeze files pin the time of Hackage index state when they were created (example), so subsequent revisions will not affect the freeze file.

Freeze files pin the time of Hackage index state when they were created

That's great!

Given this, I think indiscriminately adding base < 4.17, while still not great, is acceptable. It's also, as far as I understand, our only real option to address this problem at the root.

However, could we nevertheless constrain any network < 3.1.2.9 with base < 4.17, so that with any GHC >= 9.4 one has to use network >= 3.1.2.9?

So yes, all for it 👍

However, could we nevertheless constrain any network < 3.1.2.9 with base < 4.17, so that with any GHC >= 9.4 one has to use network >= 3.1.2.9?

So yes, all for it 👍

@kazu-yamamoto Do you wish to do this?

Sorry for the delay. I wan on vacation. I need to admit that I cannot follow this conversation completely.
If I should modify network.cabal, please send a PR.
If I should modify the metadata on Hackage, please tell me instructions.

The suggestion is to add an upper bound for all older network packages on hackage.

constrain any network < 3.1.2.9 with base < 4.17, so that with any GHC >= 9.4 one has to use network >= 3.1.2.9?

This could be done with the hackage-cli tool.

1. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. Would you make these revisions? (Otherwise, if you authorize me, I can also do it.)

@kazu-yamamoto the alternative would be that every user of network would need to add something along the lines of https://github.com/mpilgrem/hpack/blob/2187fa8f822f4fd485df47511548df9d1a341e2c/package.yaml#L38-L41

(that's at least how I understand the situation)

I agree.
Let me remind how to use hackage-ci.
This would take time a little.

@andreasabel @sol
Would you give a look at https://github.com/kazu-yamamoto/network-cabal?
If you like this, I will do hackage-cli push-cabal.

@andreasabel @sol Would you give a look at kazu-yamamoto/network-cabal? If you like this, I will do hackage-cli push-cabal.

I gave it a brief look, but I cannot really check this efficiently since it does not display the diff...

If you do hackage-cli push-cabal *.cabal without --publish, it gives you the diff for each file without committing the revision, so you can give it a brief sanity check. (And then repeat with --publish.)

@andreasabel Each commit shows you the diffs. Isn't it good enough?

@andreasabel Each commit shows you the diffs. Isn't it good enough?

Apologies, indeed. I looked through the commits now, and they all set the < 4.17 bound correctly, AFAICS. (The commit messages sometimes say < 5, which confused me a bit in the beginning, but that does not matter.)

So, LGTM!

I need to increment x-revision, sigh.

Kazu, thanks for taking care of this 🙏😊

I need to increment x-revision, sigh.

I think I never had to do this explicitly. Shouldn't the tooling already take care of it somehow?

OK. I found --incr-rev.
I removed all unchanged cabal files to avoid errors.
And I think I have done it.
Please check the hackage.

For record, I wrote README.md: https://github.com/kazu-yamamoto/network-cabal