'stack solver' also enables tests when 'extra-dep: true'

[hesselink]

Since fixing #862, stack solver enables tests, which is great. However, it also does this for local packages marked extra-dep: true. This doesn't match what a later stack build --test would do, and in our case, causes a failed dependency resolution. I see no easy fix, though.

[snoyberg]

The only fix I can think of is to implement a better dependency solver, which i what #116 is tracking. It seems like no one is interested in pushing that forward right now, though a lot of the pieces seem to be in place from others. Interested in trying to start up that discussion again?

[hesselink]

Perhaps, unless there's a better solution to my original problem: what I'm trying to do is maintain a custom snapshot. So I want to see which packages in the snapshot can be upgraded. I currently switch to the ghc-only snapshot, and then run the solver to get the newest versions. Perhaps there is a better way to do this?

[snoyberg]

Not answering the question directly, but: why maintain a custom snapshot instead of using an LTS or Nightly? Do you have a large number of packages that are not in Stackage? Are you using particularly old (or new) versions of any packages?

[hesselink]

Yes, we have both: a set of packages not in stackage, a slightly older compiler (7.8) and a set of packages at older versions because of bugs or dependencies. We moved from a cabal freeze file to extra deps to a custom snapshot.

[snoyberg]

Hmm... Is there any cabal-based workaround for this? I can't see an automatic one, just the manual process of doing --enable-tests for some packages and then rerunning the solver without --enable-tests. An even hackier approach would be to manually edit the .cabal files of the offending packages to remove the test suites.

[hesselink]

No, like I said, I didn't see any workaround myself. I ended up editing the .cabal files of the packages like you suggested. But if there's a better way I'd like to use it :)

[snoyberg]

With cabal: nope, I can't think of another way. I would recommend adding a comment to #116 about this and see if that can spur any further development around alternative dep solvers.

[hesselink]

OK, I've made a note. Should I leave this open or close it?

[snoyberg]

I'd say close it. If anyone comes up with a better approach in the future
we can reopen.

One other possibility in this would be to make a feature request to the
cabal team.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015, 5:16 PM Erik Hesselink [email protected]
wrote:

OK, I've made a note. Should I leave this open or close it?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#917 (comment)
.

[hesselink]

OK, I'll close it. Good point about the feature request to cabal, I'll try to come up with a nice ticket there.