Bump package process dependency version to 1.6.15.0 and move from Cabal to cabal-install

[Mikolaj]

This mimics #8279 and is needed due to #8279 (comment)

[robx]

Depending on non-GHC-bundled versions of process might lead to similar trouble as described here: https://discourse.haskell.org/t/why-does-ghc-9-2-4-require-process-1-6-13-2/4884/4.

It might be a better idea to do this only for cabal-install instead of Cabal the library.

[ulysses4ever]

No matter what version of process Cabal depends upon, there will be a version of GHC that is incompatible? In that case, people either update GHC or downgrade Cabal. And on Discourse, they’re saying that 9.2.5 will come with the newer process.

That said, if the idea to only bump cabal-install dependency solves the dreaded ctrl-c problem, maybe that’s the most robust way to go.

[Mikolaj]

That said, if the idea to only bump cabal-install dependency solves the dreaded ctrl-c problem, maybe that’s the most robust way to go.

Well, I don't think in this case we'd build Cabal with old process and cabal-install with new. Rather both would use the new process. The only difference would be when somebody is using Cabal, but not cabal-install.

Given that it sounds safer, let me move the bound from Cabal to cabal-install.

[robx]

That said, if the idea to only bump cabal-install dependency solves the dreaded ctrl-c problem, maybe that’s the most robust way to go.

Well, I don't think in this case we'd build Cabal with old process and cabal-install with new. Rather both would use the new process. The only difference would be when somebody is using Cabal, but not cabal-install.

Given that it sounds safer, let me move the bound from Cabal to cabal-install.

The potential problems arise for projects that depend on Cabal the library. E.g. using both Cabal and hspec, which seems quite likely to occur.

[Mikolaj]

@mergify backport 3.8

[mergify]

backport 3.8

✅ Backports have been created

• #8378 Bump package process dependency version to 1.6.15.0 and move from Cabal to cabal-install (backport #8342) has been created for branch 3.8

[Mikolaj]

Let me rebase to see if the recent CI workaround unblocks merging.

[Mikolaj]

@mergify rebase

[mergify]

rebase

✅ Branch has been successfully rebased

[Mikolaj]

This is rather important and our CI is currently broken (probably some infrastructure corruption), so I'm merging and then backporting manually.

[Mikolaj]

@mergify backport

[mergify]

backport

❌ No backport have been created

No destination branches found

[andreasabel]

Looks like we should release this fix rather soon, maybe as Cabal-3.8.1.1?

@robx wrote:

Depending on non-GHC-bundled versions of process might lead to similar trouble as described here: discourse.haskell.org/t/why-does-ghc-9-2-4-require-process-1-6-13-2/4884/4.

This potential trouble has turned into real trouble in:

• Cabal-3.8.1.0 depends on too recent process-1.6.14, rendering it unusable with package ghc-9.2.4 and older #8554

[Mikolaj]

Agreed. There is enough fixes already merged or in flight that 3.8.2.0 of all packages makes sense. If anybody volunteers as a release manager for 3.8.2.0, I will help to make the release soon. Otherwise, I will make the release at some point, but not necessarily right now (depending on the other fixes, their workarounds, etc.).

[andreasabel]

@Mikolaj wrote:

Agreed. There is enough fixes already merged or in flight that 3.8.2.0 of all packages makes sense. If anybody volunteers as a release manager for 3.8.2.0, I will help to make the release soon. Otherwise, I will make the release at some point, but not necessarily right now (depending on the other fixes, their workarounds, etc.).

A proper release would likely be taking a couple of months. Alternatively, can we just release this one patch as cabal-install 3.8.1.1? Cabal 3.8.1.0 can be revised to make the conditional process constraint non-restrictive (process -any).

[Mikolaj]

Yes, absolutely. Release checklist is already mostly done (https://github.com/haskell/cabal/wiki/Making-a-release) and some points can be ignored for a minor release like that. I will help.