This project is mirrored from https://github.com/haskell/Cabal. Pull mirroring updated .
  1. 29 Jun, 2014 1 commit
  2. 28 Jun, 2014 5 commits
  3. 26 Jun, 2014 2 commits
  4. 25 Jun, 2014 2 commits
  5. 24 Jun, 2014 8 commits
  6. 09 Jun, 2014 2 commits
    • Herbert Valerio Riedel's avatar
      Allow template-haskell to be upgradable again · ffd67e5e
      Herbert Valerio Riedel authored
      This partly reverts 65e9b88b
      which marked `template-haskell` non-upgradable. However, since are now
      able to fix-up wrong .cabal meta-data on Hackage, previous `template-haskell`
      releases have been augmented by proper version bounds so that it's now
      safe again to let the Cabal solver handle reinstalling `template-haskell`
      
      See also #1811, #667, #1761, and #1444
      
      (cherry picked from commit 65ae95c1 / #1934)
      ffd67e5e
    • Herbert Valerio Riedel's avatar
      Allow template-haskell to be upgradable again · 65ae95c1
      Herbert Valerio Riedel authored
      This partly reverts 65e9b88b
      which marked `template-haskell` non-upgradable. However, since are now
      able to fix-up wrong .cabal meta-data on Hackage, previous `template-haskell`
      releases have been augmented by proper version bounds so that it's now
      safe again to let the Cabal solver handle reinstalling `template-haskell`
      
      See also #1811, #667, #1761, and #1444
      65ae95c1
  7. 07 Jun, 2014 2 commits
    • Andres Löh's avatar
      Treat all flags of a package as interdependent. · 3f777568
      Andres Löh authored
      There was an open bug that could cause conflict sets to be
      computed incorrectly if flags were involved in the conflict
      set. Incorrectly computed conflict sets can lead to the solver not
      finding solutions even though they actually exist.
      
      Because I decided that computing flag dependencies correctly is tricky
      and probably not worth the effort, we're now treating all flags (of a
      package) as mutually dependent. This means that if any flag choice ends
      up in a conflict set, then it's as if all flag choices (of the same
      package) are in that conflict set. This is potentially slower for
      packages having many flags, but it should at least be correct, because
      it's conservative.
      3f777568
    • Simon Hengel's avatar
      78c0428f
  8. 28 May, 2014 1 commit
  9. 26 May, 2014 2 commits
  10. 24 May, 2014 1 commit
  11. 23 May, 2014 2 commits
    • Andres Löh's avatar
      Configurable strong/weak flags. · f950e8d7
      Andres Löh authored
      This adds a mechanism in the modular solver to store whether a flag
      is "strong" or "weak". A weak flag is deferred during solving, a strong
      flag is not.
      
      By default, flags are now weak unless they're manual. This is a change
      in behaviour, but I think it's probably the better default, because many
      automatic flags are used to figure out what's on the system rather than
      to impose hard constraints.
      
      There's a new flag --strong-flags that restores the old behaviour. I do
      not think such a global flag is particularly useful, but it may be
      of interest to compare build plans between the new and old behaviour.
      
      With these preparations, it's easy to make the distinction between
      strong and weak flags more sophisticated. We can either add more
      heuristics as to when flags should be treated as strong or weak, or we
      can add syntax to .cabal files that allows package authors to specify
      explicitly how they intend a flag to behave.
      
      This is related to various cabal-install issues, e.g. #1831, #1864,
      and #1877.
      
      (cherry picked from commit 3dcddea4)
      
      Conflicts:
      	cabal-install/Distribution/Client/Dependency.hs
      f950e8d7
    • Andres Löh's avatar
      Treat flags with much less priority. · 5e7c7f69
      Andres Löh authored
      This implements two changes:
      
      (1) Flag choices are deferred whenever possible.
      (2) If a package appears on both branches of a conditional, the
          unconstrained package is lifted out of the conditional.
      
      In combination, we're trying to achieve that the solver should pick
      a package before the flag, and thereby e.g. respect installed package
      versions.
      
      This is adequate in the common use case that flags are simply
      representing a disjunction, and should be rather weak.
      
      We'll have to see what happens in the few other situations where flags
      are really representing optional features. I'd expect, however, that
      in such situations there are targets in one branch, and not the other.
      Then the flag choice would still happen prior to the corresponding
      target.
      
      (cherry picked from commit 91abc4f9)
      5e7c7f69
  12. 20 May, 2014 2 commits
    • Andres Löh's avatar
      Fix flag goal generation (and hopefully #1855). · a57fe48d
      Andres Löh authored
      Package flags generate (Boolean) goals. Package flags can be dependent
      on one another, in situations such as this one:
      
        if flag(a)
          ...
        else
          if flag(b)
            ...
          else
            ...
      
      In such a scenario, it's important to record that flag b depends on flag
      a. This affects conflict set generation. If something fails due to the
      choice of flag b, we should not backjump beyond flag a.
      
      While the code handling the proper insertion of goals with their correct
      dependencies was always there, it was accidentally overridden by another
      piece of code that created flag goals (without dependencies) for all
      flags defined in a package. The reason I add flag goals separately is
      because not all paths in the decision tree may contain choices for all
      flags of a package. For example, if a is chosen to be True in the
      example above, b does not occur at all. But flag choices may still
      affect other things that aren't visible to the solver (directory
      choices, exposed modules, ...), so all flags declared should always be
      chosen explicitly. So we want to keep adding all flags declared in a
      package as dummies, but we have to make sure to do so *before* adding
      the actual dependency tree. This way, while traversing the dependency
      tree, the ones occurring in dependencies will be added again, overriding
      the dummies, rather than the other way round (which we used to have
      before, where the dummies were overwriting the more informative
      versions).
      
      (cherry picked from commit a51b8378)
      a57fe48d
    • Andres Löh's avatar
      Fix a flag-handling bug related to #1855. · 5b58dc88
      Andres Löh authored
      This was an innocent-looking but severe bug that was triggered for manual
      flags in certain circumstances: if both choices of a manual flag are
      already invalidated by other decisions, then the old code was removing
      the nodes underneath the flag completely. As a result, there's a node
      with no children rather than a node with two failure-children. The
      fail-nodes carry important information that is used to compute how far
      we can backtrack. If this information is removed, strange things happen.
      
      (cherry picked from commit 3e33a0f3)
      5b58dc88
  13. 19 May, 2014 5 commits
    • Andres Löh's avatar
      Configurable strong/weak flags. · 3dcddea4
      Andres Löh authored
      This adds a mechanism in the modular solver to store whether a flag
      is "strong" or "weak". A weak flag is deferred during solving, a strong
      flag is not.
      
      By default, flags are now weak unless they're manual. This is a change
      in behaviour, but I think it's probably the better default, because many
      automatic flags are used to figure out what's on the system rather than
      to impose hard constraints.
      
      There's a new flag --strong-flags that restores the old behaviour. I do
      not think such a global flag is particularly useful, but it may be
      of interest to compare build plans between the new and old behaviour.
      
      With these preparations, it's easy to make the distinction between
      strong and weak flags more sophisticated. We can either add more
      heuristics as to when flags should be treated as strong or weak, or we
      can add syntax to .cabal files that allows package authors to specify
      explicitly how they intend a flag to behave.
      
      This is related to various cabal-install issues, e.g. #1831, #1864,
      and #1877.
      3dcddea4
    • Andres Löh's avatar
      Treat flags with much less priority. · 91abc4f9
      Andres Löh authored
      This implements two changes:
      
      (1) Flag choices are deferred whenever possible.
      (2) If a package appears on both branches of a conditional, the
          unconstrained package is lifted out of the conditional.
      
      In combination, we're trying to achieve that the solver should pick
      a package before the flag, and thereby e.g. respect installed package
      versions.
      
      This is adequate in the common use case that flags are simply
      representing a disjunction, and should be rather weak.
      
      We'll have to see what happens in the few other situations where flags
      are really representing optional features. I'd expect, however, that
      in such situations there are targets in one branch, and not the other.
      Then the flag choice would still happen prior to the corresponding
      target.
      91abc4f9
    • Andres Löh's avatar
      Fix flag goal generation (and hopefully #1855). · a51b8378
      Andres Löh authored
      Package flags generate (Boolean) goals. Package flags can be dependent
      on one another, in situations such as this one:
      
        if flag(a)
          ...
        else
          if flag(b)
            ...
          else
            ...
      
      In such a scenario, it's important to record that flag b depends on flag
      a. This affects conflict set generation. If something fails due to the
      choice of flag b, we should not backjump beyond flag a.
      
      While the code handling the proper insertion of goals with their correct
      dependencies was always there, it was accidentally overridden by another
      piece of code that created flag goals (without dependencies) for all
      flags defined in a package. The reason I add flag goals separately is
      because not all paths in the decision tree may contain choices for all
      flags of a package. For example, if a is chosen to be True in the
      example above, b does not occur at all. But flag choices may still
      affect other things that aren't visible to the solver (directory
      choices, exposed modules, ...), so all flags declared should always be
      chosen explicitly. So we want to keep adding all flags declared in a
      package as dummies, but we have to make sure to do so *before* adding
      the actual dependency tree. This way, while traversing the dependency
      tree, the ones occurring in dependencies will be added again, overriding
      the dummies, rather than the other way round (which we used to have
      before, where the dummies were overwriting the more informative
      versions).
      a51b8378
    • Andres Löh's avatar
      Fix a flag-handling bug related to #1855. · 3e33a0f3
      Andres Löh authored
      This was an innocent-looking but severe bug that was triggered for manual
      flags in certain circumstances: if both choices of a manual flag are
      already invalidated by other decisions, then the old code was removing
      the nodes underneath the flag completely. As a result, there's a node
      with no children rather than a node with two failure-children. The
      fail-nodes carry important information that is used to compute how far
      we can backtrack. If this information is removed, strange things happen.
      3e33a0f3
    • Mikhail Glushenkov's avatar
      Increase defaultMaxBackjumps to 2000 (from 200). · 0229cd52
      Mikhail Glushenkov authored
      As suggested by Anders Löh in #1780.
      
      (cherry picked from commit e2b481a0)
      0229cd52
  14. 15 May, 2014 1 commit
  15. 14 May, 2014 2 commits
    • barmston's avatar
      Tests for the freeze command · c2032b67
      barmston authored
      Introduced a new test-suite, package-tests, which is intended for black-box
      testing of the cabal binary.
      
      The `PackageTests` module determines which cabal binary is to be tested and
      runs the tests passing each of them the path to that binary. The binary is the
      first cabal binary found on the path. To test a different binary, adjust the
      PATH environment variable.
      
      The `PackageTests.PackageTester` module contains common routines to execute
      the cabal binary and check its results.
      
      Finally, the `PackageTests.Freeze.Check` command contains some tests for the
      freeze command.
      c2032b67
    • barmston's avatar
      Add --enable-{tests,benchmarks} to freeze command · a9dc1996
      barmston authored
      If they are present the dependencies of all test and benchmark stanzas are
      included in the frozen set of dependencies.
      a9dc1996
  16. 12 May, 2014 1 commit
  17. 11 May, 2014 1 commit