You can handle this scenario pretty easily by setting up a private hackage. Then add a second remote-repo to your cabal config, either globally or in the sandbox. We do this, and it works pretty well.
Regards, Erik On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Benjamin Edwards <edwards.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Johan, > > Not sure if this mail is a request for comments, but on the story for large > projects one thing that I would like to see is the ability to add packages > that aren't in hackage to the depends list. I agree that adding some > scanning and auto add ability is definitely sorely needed, but this > information goes into add-source-timestamps in the sandbox folder, and if > you blow away the sandbox, it's gone. Or you can try and version a file that > contains ever changing timestamps. Right now I have a shell script that > maintains a list of added sources and I keep that versioned in the project. > It would be nice to have git dependencies in there as well, and then > disallow a hackage upload for any cabal file with a non-hackage dependency > listed. I would be happy to contribute time to both design and > implementation. > > Ben > > On Thu Apr 24 2014 at 10:53:59, Johan Tibell <johan.tib...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> While I'm sure we still have a bugfix release or two to make on the 1.20 >> branch, I thought it'd be worth looking at what we want to accomplish for >> 1.22. Here are my thoughts on what we should focus on: >> >> ## A dependency solver that always works >> >> As Hackage has grown so have the requirements of the dependency solver. >> There are three distinct problems I'm seeing now that we should tackle: >> >> * Treat each sections (i.e. library, test suite, benchmark, and >> executable) in the .cabal file separately for the purpose of dependency >> resolution. Today all the sections' dependencies are merged and used as the >> constraints of the package as a whole. This is troublesome for all packages >> that are dependencies of QC, HUnit, test-framework, and criterion, as >> there's a dependency cycle if you treat e.g. the containers package and its >> test suite as one unit. >> >> The solution here is to treat each unit as a mini package for the >> purpose of dependency resolution. This would also allow you to have e.g. >> several executables with conflicting dependencies. >> >> * Improve performance. Some packages (e.g. yesod) can take over 10 >> seconds to run over. This problem will get worse as Hackage grows and we >> build bigger applications on top of it, so we need to tackle this now before >> it becomes a real problem. >> >> * Fix Hackage package blacklisting. Users can blacklist packages on >> Hackage e.g. if they know them to be broken. However, this doesn't really >> work as the Hackage blacklist translates to a soft preference in the >> dependency solver and is thus often ignored. See >> https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/1792 for the gory details. >> >> ## Do the right thing automatically >> >> This is a carry-over from the 1.20 goals, as we didn't make much progress >> here. >> >> The focus here should be on avoiding manual steps the cabal could do >> for the user. >> >> * Automatically install dependencies when needed. When `cabal build` >> would fail due to a missing dependency, just install this dependency >> instead of bugging the user to do it. This will probably have to be >> limited to sandboxes where we can't break the user's system >> >> * GHCi support could be improved by rebinding :reload to rerun e.g. >> preprocessors automatically. This would enable the users to develop >> completely from within ghci (i.e. faster edit-save-type-error cycle). >> We have most of what we need here (i.e. GHC macro support) but someone >> needs to make the final change to generate a .ghci file to pass in the >> ghci invocation. >> >> ## Faster builds >> >> I think we're almost done here. There's really only one remaining thing to >> do: >> >> * Build components and different ways (e.g. profiling) in parallel. >> We could build both profiling and non-profiling versions in parallel. >> We could also build e.g. all test suites in parallel. The key >> challenge here is to coordinate all parallel jobs so we don't spawn >> too many. >> >> ## Support large projects >> >> This is also a carry-over from the 1.20 goals. >> >> We still don't have a good story for large projects. Sandboxes are too >> annoying to use if there are 100 add-source deps. We need more automation >> and more opinionated defaults (e.g. scan the sub-directories from in which >> cabal was run to find source packages.) >> >> What we need most of all here is a design. Perhaps we could try to get >> together at some Hackathon/ICFP and discuss. >> >> ## Issue tracker spring cleaning and test suite improvements >> >> The issue tracker is out-of-hand. It's too unwieldy to use for planning >> our work and get an overview of the most important issues. We should try to >> close down bugs that haven't had updates in years with extreme prejudice. If >> the issue is important it will pop up again. >> >> We're also severely lacking in the testing department. There are two >> problems: >> >> * There aren't enough tests: the cabal user facing surface is quite >> larger (lots of features and flags) and many of them are not tested at all, >> which will lead to regressions as we keep fixing bugs and adding features. >> >> * The tests take too long to run: we have too many end-to-end style tests >> (i.e. build a whole package) and not enough unit style tests. We need to add >> more of the latter kind. >> >> Cheers, >> Johan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel