Skip to content

cabal-install 3.16: allow tar-0.7 #11225

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 4, 2025
Merged

cabal-install 3.16: allow tar-0.7 #11225

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 4, 2025
+21 −18

Conversation

@juhp
Copy link
Collaborator

@juhp juhp commented Sep 23, 2025

@juhp juhp changed the title cabal-install.cabal: allow tar-0.7 cabal-install 3.16: allow tar-0.7 Sep 23, 2025
@juhp juhp mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2025
Open
@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Sep 23, 2025

Why not backport #11209 instead?

@geekosaur
Copy link
Collaborator

geekosaur commented Sep 23, 2025

IIRC these are actually just a requirement of Fedora; there's no actual backporting or etc. requirement, just a metadata update, as with the earlier ticket for 3.12. (Well, for 3.16 we probably do want to backport if needed. That said, I thought we'd fixed this before the branch.)

@juhp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

juhp commented Sep 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

No it is for future stackage as is the other one too: hence the stackage ticket.
Will be needed when Stackage nightly moves to ghc-9.14.

Would be great if cabal kept up with upstreams more proactively.

@juhp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

juhp commented Sep 24, 2025

Why not backport #11209 instead?

I would like both: 3.14 should not be ahead of 3.16

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Sep 24, 2025

Why not backport #11209 instead?

I would like both: 3.14 should not be ahead of 3.16

Yes, I mean, why not backport #11209 twice instead? In particular, it has some more code changes, which is probably required (tar has changed its API). But, in general, it's better to backport things.

@geekosaur
Copy link
Collaborator

geekosaur commented Sep 24, 2025

It's not strictly required, but the new API fixes a bug where you can run out of file descriptors.

@juhp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

juhp commented Sep 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Ah I see sorry (would help if I actually opened the link my bad) - I wrongly assumed you were talking about my other PR.

Sure we can if it is easy - my concern is only to lift the tar bound: let me try to rebase then later

@geekosaur @juhp
support tar-0.7.0.0
8bfecbc 
Use the new functionality (which didn't make the changelog) when
available; see #11131. This moves `createTarGzFile` to
`Distribution.Client.Compat.Tar` with a re-export.
@juhp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

juhp commented Sep 28, 2025

Okay I cherry-picked @geekosaur's PR commit

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Nov 14, 2025

I see 3.16 still doesn't have the bound changed. Is this PR ready for review? If so could you set the needs-review label? It will unfortunately need 2 reviews, because it's not technically a backport.

@geekosaur
Copy link
Collaborator

geekosaur commented Nov 14, 2025

@Mikolaj, it still needs only one review. Backports skip the cooldown, not the second review.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Nov 14, 2025

@geekosaur: I stand corrected.

@juhp: in that case, please kindly set the merge_me label (unless you'd prefer to skip the 3.16.1.0 release, but we can't guarantee there's going to be 3.16.2.0).

@Bodigrim Bodigrim added the merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge label Nov 17, 2025
Mikolaj
Mikolaj approved these changes Dec 4, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@Mikolaj Mikolaj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's make the merging possible (non-backports require 2 reviews). Thank you for the PR.

@mergify mergify bot added the merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days label Dec 4, 2025
@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Dec 4, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Merge Queue Status

✅ The pull request has been merged

This pull request spent 1 hour 56 minutes 25 seconds in the queue, including 1 hour 45 minutes 31 seconds running CI.
The checks were run on draft #11319.

Required conditions to merge

@mergify mergify bot added the queued label Dec 4, 2025
mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 4, 2025
@mergify
Merge of #11225
a166fdd
This was referenced Dec 4, 2025
Closed
Merged
@mergify mergify bot merged commit 1be88e9 into 3.16 Dec 4, 2025
58 checks passed
@mergify mergify bot deleted the juhp-patch-4 branch December 4, 2025 20:24
@mergify mergify bot removed the queued label Dec 4, 2025
mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 4, 2025
@mergify
Merge of #11225
54df55c
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@Mikolaj Mikolaj Mikolaj approved these changes

@geekosaur geekosaur geekosaur approved these changes

@Bodigrim Bodigrim Bodigrim approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@juhp @Mikolaj @geekosaur @Bodigrim