Alejandro,
that is correct, as I see it. Duncan has very good points there but it
seems to me that we need a concrete proposal so we can propose solutions to
the problem. The fact is that the current situation is a middle of the
ground that doesn't help Cabal nor Ghc.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Alejandro Serrano Mena
I'm willing to help in the process, if some directions were given to me on how to tackle this problem.
In any case, for me is seems fine to have a dependency from cabal to ghc, the only problem is the converse: ghc depending on cabal. Is this right?
2013/9/6 Herbert Valerio Riedel
On 2013-09-06 at 15:13:58 +0200, Yuri de Wit wrote:
I spent some time looking into the touch points between ghc and cabal in the past, and the first oddity i saw was a direct dependency from ghc to the cabal sources. After taking a closer look it seems that ghc shares some common, low level modules with cabal that didnt seem to justify the whole dependency.
The right solution, imho, is to review these dependencies and move the low level ones out into a separate package that is shared by both ghc and cabal and that will rarely change. The direct side effect of this is that ghc would not be tied directly to a specific cabal version and you would not have to deal with this issue.
[...]
fyi, a similiar/related discussion took place few months ago on ghc-devs:
http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2013-March/000800.html
hth, hvr
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe