Re: draft proposal on provenance-qualified dependencies

I've updated the proposal with increased motivation as suggested, and submitted it to the repo. Here is the discussion thread: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/115 --g On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

| current existing "search path-like" functionality where a chain of | overlays may live over a repo. The proposal does not address that, | because it is how things work already -- although arguably, the way in | which this works may be insufficiently understood among existing cabal | users?

Well I can say with certainty that it's insufficiently understood by /this/ cabal user.

I had no idea there could be more than one repo, which 'cabal update' caches locally.

Simon

| -----Original Message----- | From: Gershom B [mailto:gershomb@gmail.com] | Sent: 23 February 2018 15:02 | To: Simon Peyton Jones | Cc: cabal-devel | Subject: Re: draft proposal on provenance-qualified dependencies | | Thanks for these comments Simon. It is good to have a sanity-check on | these proposals before they go before a broad audience. I'll try to | take them into account and submit this properly as a proposal | (including creating the associated discussion thread) in the next few | days. If anyone else has any thoughts (bear in mind this involves | cross-cutting changes across cabal files and a bit of ghc) please send | them on. | | On "Does a particular build have to use packages from one repo only?" | -- the idea is that _per package_ a provenance may be specified to a | specific repo. If no provenance is specified, then there is the | current existing "search path-like" functionality where a chain of | overlays may live over a repo. The proposal does not address that, | because it is how things work already -- although arguably, the way in | which this works may be insufficiently understood among existing cabal | users? (In fact, looking at the cabal documentation, I see that the | description of multiple remote repos doesn't specify the manner in | which they are combined, which it should). | | Cheers, | Gershom | | On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Simon Peyton Jones | wrote: | > Gershom | > | > Looks like a great idea. | > | > Lots of questions though: | > | > | > - I think more motivation would be helpful. E.g. "You are in change | > of the GHC 8.6 release. Package authors don't want to upload a | new | > version of their packages until 8.6 is out, but you still want to | > smoke-test 8.6 against their packages. Doing so requires some | minor | > changes (version bounds, changes in base-library APIs etc); so you | > want to be able to make these changes in a sandbox that won't hurt | > anyone". Or something like that. | > | > Maybe describe other use-cases. It's *much* easier to evaluate | > a proposal when I'm totally clear what it's for. | > | > - Does a particular build have to use packages from one repo only? | > Or is there something like a "search path"? | > | > Thanks! | > | > Simon | > | > | -----Original Message----- | > | From: cabal-devel [mailto:cabal-devel-bounces@haskell.org] On | > | Behalf Of Gershom B | > | Sent: 19 February 2018 00:26 | > | To: cabal-devel | > | Subject: draft proposal on provenance-qualified dependencies | > | | > | Hey all, I mentioned (on the long SLURP thread) that I was | thinking | > | about a general proposal for provenance-qualified dependencies to | > | reduce coupling in the haskell ecosystem. Having worked it out a | > | bit, I think the bigger win is it also provides a way to specify | > | dependencies on git repos, etc., which has been an oft-requested | > | feature. | > | | > | I don't want to submit it as an ecosystem proposal proper without | > | further polish, and I held off on bugging a larger audience of | cabal | > | folks until the 2.2 branch was cut. So now I'm passing this along | > | for further comment and polish before I make a real proposal: | > | | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit | > | hu | > | b.com%2Fgbaz%2Fghc-proposals%2Fblob%2Fpatch-1%2Fproposals%2F0000- | > | provenance-qualified- | > | | > | | imports.rst&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C64fd20012b9a4b2 | > | 4d | > | | > | | 28508d5772f6cf2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6365459 | > | 67 | > | | 936143539%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz | > | Ii | > | LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C- | > | | > | | 1&sdata=cH0gNADmzA%2BTkmXZEDY6lLYUTx2D2KX%2B3T8KO%2FvU86s%3D&reserve | > | d= | > | 0 | > | | > | There's no urgency, but it would be good to get some feedback in | > | the next few weeks if possible. | > | | > | Cheers, | > | Gershom | > | _______________________________________________ | > | cabal-devel mailing list | > | cabal-devel@haskell.org | > | | > | | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail | > | .h | > | askell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcabal- | > | | > | | devel&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C64fd20012b9a4b24d2850 | > | 8d | > | | > | | 5772f6cf2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6365459679361 | > | 43 | > | | 539%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJB | > | Ti | > | I6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C- | > | | 1&sdata=fgfMNTNt%2BwEQ5PaTKxtl0bmO7wDv9sBiMUnWSbJhcnE%3D&reserved=0