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 <trupill@gmail.com> wrote:
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 <hvr@gnu.org>
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