On 09/09/2015 10:08 AM, Kosyrev Serge wrote: > Bardur Arantsson <s...@scientician.net> writes: > >> On 09/09/2015 12:22 AM, Gershom B wrote: >>> That _does_ look simpler! >>> >>> However, I think there are multiple efforts underway towards the >>> nix-style stuff. We had a GSoC on that for example. And in that >>> workflow, if it all works out properly, then we end up with a >>> situation where since the general-user-db has no conflicts, then >>> sandboxes are the tools that become generally not required. >>> >>> So I would be quite hesitant about moving things in the other direction... >>> >> >> I do see some advantages to having sandboxes still, namely isolation of >> the binaries into a single directory that you can put into $PATH, but >> I'm assuming/hoping there's some way to handle that in nix-style >> cabal/cabal-install as well. (If that turns out to be wrong, I imagine a >> middle-of-the-road approach here would be to just have a single package >> database and treat it as a simple cache of all the binaries ever >> compiled and we could still keep sandboxing for binaries and such..That >> might also nicely solve the problem of redudant compilation which >> happens with sandboxes now.) >> >> Just out of curiousity, when is the GSoC deadline? > > Success was recently announced: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/cabal-devel%40haskell.org/msg10091.html >
Thanks for the pointer. Not sure how I missed that. Looks very promising -- I'll give it a whirl some time in the next few days. Regards, _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
