Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 24.07.2014, 14:56 +0100 schrieb Edward Z.Yang: > We were wondering if there was any reason to prefer the former > situation over the latter. One way to decide that is to ask “What is the more stable interface”? I.e. under what circumstances will upgrading Cabal require upgrading packages depended upon by ghc. So while Duncan’s Proposal has no such dependency, in Simon’s proposal there is one. Will ghc-db’s interface be stable enough that the Cabal developers will be happy to build against a very old version of it? Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner m...@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
