Stackage LTS 14 (was: Adding Purescript)

[Timothy Sample <samplet@ngyro.com>]

Hi John,

John Soo <jsoo1@asu.edu> writes:

> I have packaged PureScript in a channel and I would like to merge it

Cool!

> Some of its dependencies are from hackage and are much newer than
> those in the stackage snapshot we use.  So my question is where should
> the dependencies belong?

Maybe we should just bite the bullet and upgrade to LTS 14.  Thoughts?
Would that cover most of the PureScripts dependencies?

I did the bulk of the transition to the current version and it was not
so bad.  We could re-purpose the wip-haskell-updates branch that is
already setup on the build farm (everything on that branch has already
landed in master).  That way, it would be a lot easier to work
collaboratively and incrementally.

One of the things I want to do this time is to do the upgrade in one
mega commit.  I’m pretty sure that some of the commits last time had
inconsistent package sets, which is not ideal.  I’m not sure how to
avoid that upgrading one package at a time.  Hence, my rough plan is to
start by setting GHC 8.6 as the compiler for the build system, and then
run the refresh script with Stackage LTS 14.  After that, I will push
the results to wip-haskell-updates and see how it goes.

Ricardo, what do you think?  Are we okay to take over
wip-haskell-updates?  Does a mega commit make sense or do you think
that’s a bad idea?

This is something that I could get started later this week.  With
respect to PureScript, it might be easier than adding a bunch of more
recent Haskell packages, but that depends on how many packages it is.
Either way, this is something that should be done.  It is pretty safe to
try, too, since if it looks like it is going to be really hairy, we can
always bail and add PureScript with separate dependencies in the
interim.


-- Tim