Jens, could file a Cabal bug for the contents of this email? Edward
Excerpts from Edward Z. Yang's message of 2015-01-18 22:47:23 -0800: > Hey Jens, > > The motivation for truncating the names and version was to keep > symbol name sizes manageable even with the addition of the hash, > while giving at least some hint when working with the symbols > directly. It doesn't seem that this rationale applies for library > names, so it's possible we could separate these (in any case, only > the hash really matters: the package name/version are included > in the hash), but we'd have to figure out where in the current codebase > makes assumptions about this. > > Edward > > Excerpts from Jens Petersen's message of 2015-01-18 17:54:34 -0800: > > Hi, > > > > I see that with Cabal-1.22, library paths are now of the form: > > > > /usr/lib64/ghc-7.10.0.20141222/direc_3m6Ew9I164U5MIkATLCdb8/ > > libHSdirec_3m6Ew9I164U5MIkATLCdb8-ghc7.10.0.20141222.so > > > > etc. > > > > Is the 5 character truncation of package names (and no version) necessary? > > It makes it pretty hard to see at a glance what package a particular > > directory or file belongs to and seems there is no easy way to work out the > > package version without referring to the package.conf file/dir. > > > > If possible I would prefer a filepath format like: > > > > /usr/lib64/ghc-7.10.0.20141222/directory-1.2.1.1_3m6Ew9I164U5MIkATLCdb8/ > > libHSdirectory-1.2.1.1_3m6Ew9I164U5MIkATLCdb8-ghc7.10.0.20141222.so > > > > Would that be feasible/make sense? > > > > Jens _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
