Cabal-1.22 keyed library filepaths
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
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
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
Hi Edward,
On 9 February 2015 at 07:10, Edward Z. Yang
Jens, could file a Cabal bug for the contents of this email?
I opened https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/2437. Sorry for the delay, I was travelling and just saw your mail now. Thanks, Jens
participants (2)
-
Edward Z. Yang -
Jens Petersen