Thanks, Gershom, Ryan.
I made a mistake in my earlier email saying “1.22.1.0 and 1.22.1.1”, where I
meant “1.22.0.1”.
It looks like the following cabal-install releases are missing from the
cabal/releases directory:
- 1.22.0.1
- 1.18.0.5
- 1.18.0
- 1.16.0.2
- 1.16.0.1
- 1.16.0
Additionally,
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Simon Peyton Jones simo...@microsoft.com
wrote:
But time has passed and it hasn't happened. Is this because I'm
misunderstanding? Or because it is harder than I think? Or because there
are much bigger problems? Or because there is insufficient effort
Dear Cabal developers
You'll probably have seen the thread about the Haskell Platform.
Among other things, this point arose:
| Another thing we should fix is the (now false) impression that HP gets in
| the way of installing other packages and versions due to cabal hell.
People mean
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM Simon Peyton Jones simo...@microsoft.com
wrote:
It's already a huge source of confusion for people using GHCi what they
get messages about ByteString is not ByteString.
Reading your blog post [1] it seems that we are addressing different
questions:
·
On 2015-03-23, at 09:52, Simon Peyton Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
The point is that I may need to install a bunch of packages to build a
program. If I’m using Cabal, none of those newly installed packages need be
exposed; I simply need them there so I can compile my program (using
On 2015-03-22, at 15:59, Michael Snoyman mich...@snoyman.com wrote:
2. A method for installing GHC and build tools. I personally think that it
makes sense to separate out this aspect of the platform from all others.
MinGHC is an example of such a project: a minimal set of functionality for
But I'm hazy about why sandboxes are needed at all. As I understand it, they
were invented to solve the very problem that is now solved (if only Cabal could
take advantage of it).
Simon
From: Gershom B gersh...@gmail.com
Sent: 23 March 2015 17:31
To:
It's already a huge source of confusion for people using GHCi what they get
messages about ByteString is not ByteString.
Reading your blog post [1] it seems that we are addressing different questions:
· My proposal is only that the act of *installing* a package does not
break existing
1.22.2.0 has been updated on the downloads page. The issue still
remains the the '-latest' symlinks have not been updated.
On 23 March 2015 at 05:46, Gershom B gersh...@gmail.com wrote:
I’ve re-enabled the directory listings for
https://www.haskell.org/cabal/release/
(admins, note: I just
If I'm reading this correctly, the proposal then would be to have cabal
automatically hide packages (as oppose to unregister them) to arrive at a world
where all exposed packages are consistent. Extrapolating for the case you
mention above
* if I installed P and then Q, I'd end up with
I'm in favor of adding support to Cabal to allow for this situation.
However: I highly doubt this will be the panacea as predicted. It's already
a huge source of confusion for people using GHCi what they get messages
about ByteString is not ByteString. In fact, this confusion is so
prevalent that
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 08:45 +, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
Dear Cabal developers
You'll probably have seen the thread about the Haskell Platform.
Among other things, this point arose:
| Another thing we should fix is the (now false) impression that HP gets in
| the way of installing
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 20:13 +, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
But I'm hazy about why sandboxes are needed at all. As I understand
it, they were invented to solve the very problem that is now solved
(if only Cabal could take advantage of it).
Yes, the nix approach would subsume sandboxes.
I
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Simon Peyton Jones
simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
| Another thing we should fix is the (now false) impression that HP gets in
| the way of installing other packages and versions due to cabal hell.
People mean different things by cabal hell, but the inability
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 22:10 +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 20:13 +, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
But I'm hazy about why sandboxes are needed at all. As I understand
it, they were invented to solve the very problem that is now solved
(if only Cabal could take advantage
15 matches
Mail list logo
