fyi, below you can find an expanded list of related links. I do appreciate the new sandboxing feature in 1.18 and I think it is a great feature, but it is not addressing the core issue here: adding support for multiple instances of the same version. It also seems to me that supporting this would be a relatively low hanging fruit that could have a big impact to the whole ecosystem once addressed. So why not address it? I don't have enough exposure to Ghc or Cabal to make a difference here, now (what is needed is an elaboration of the issues together with a minimal solution), but I would be willing to participate in a supporting role (testing, reviewing, and minor bug fixes).
GSoC 2012 - Enable GHC to use multiple instances of a package for compilation - Philipp Schuster http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/google/gsoc2012/phischu/1 http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/project/google/gsoc2012/phischu/19001 https://github.com/phischu/cabal GHC Commentary http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Packages/MultiInstances http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Packages http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/GSoCMultipleInstances Mailing list http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.ghc.devel/443 http://markmail.org/message/4qvegvx32lhlo66g#query:+page:1+mid:bwdgykv4g2hzqg5t+state:results On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>wrote: > | > Can I ask what the Cabal team's position is with respect to the > | question of allowing the same package to be installed several times, > | each compiled against a different collection of dependencies? > | > | I think that we all agree that in the long term a Nix-like package > | database is the ideal solution to the "Cabal hell" problem (I even > | mentioned this in the "Future Work" section of the post you linked). > | However, it seems to be much harder to implement than sandboxes. > > I have not read the full GSoC page (thanks for that link), but are you all > convinced that it *needs* to be that hard? > > The fundamental idea is, after all, so simple! (I could elaborate.) > Perhaps the GSoc project was trying to be more ambitious. > > Or maybe I'm simply under-estimating. But fundamentally it seems simple, > so I'm suggesting we should perhaps try a bit harder to ferret out the > underlying simplicity rather than assuming it must be hard. > > Simon > > > _______________________________________________ > cabal-devel mailing list > cabal-devel@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel >
_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
