On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Yuri de Wit wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Brandon Allbery
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <
>> simo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> To me it seems simple and obvious! Why are we going round the houses to
>>> do so
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Brandon Allbery
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <
> simo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> To me it seems simple and obvious! Why are we going round the houses to
>> do something so simple?
>
>
> So cabal can maintain its conceit that
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Simon Peyton Jones
wrote:
> To me it seems simple and obvious! Why are we going round the houses to
> do something so simple?
So cabal can maintain its conceit that it supports more than just ghc.
--
brandon s allbery kf8nh sine
f
| Joachim Breitner
| Sent: 24 July 2014 15:07
| To: ghc-d...@haskell.org
| Cc: cabal-devel
| Subject: Re: Removing GHC's dependency on Cabal
|
| 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
|
Hi,
On 24 July 2014 16:07, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
> 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?
Cabal's policy is to support
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> We were wondering if there was any reason to prefer the former
> situation over the latter. One answer might be that Cabal is less keen
> to have a dependency on a very GHC specific library (although the
> ghc-pkg dependency is quite a fair
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 up
Hi,
On 24 July 2014 15:56, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> We were wondering if there was any reason to prefer the former
> situation over the latter. One answer might be that Cabal is less keen
> to have a dependency on a very GHC specific library (although the
> ghc-pkg dependency is quite a fairly tig
Hello all,
I know Duncan and SPJ have been keen on removing GHC's dependency on
Cabal for some time now. Simon and I were chatting about the subject
today, and we wanted to propose an alternative way of doing the
remodularization.
Here are diagrams of the proposals:
http://web.mit.edu/~e
