Are there any potential disadvantages? I'm probably going to switch over regardless, but it would be nice to know. I recently saw a demo of it, and it seemed like a great addition to cabal. On Oct 30, 2013 2:06 AM, "Johan Tibell" wrote:

(Note: I'm one of the developers/designers of cabal sandboxes.)

Cabal sandboxes were developed after cabal-dev and was generally an effort to bring sandboxes to the masses by integrating them into cabal proper. There are a couple of benefits to this integration:

* New features are designed with sandboxes in mind. * We can generally get a smoother integration with rest of Cabal. * We support add-source deps as links rather than copies (see the docs).

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Graham Berks wrote:

...

Can someone point me in the direction of why you would use one over the other ??

Thanks Graham

_______________________________________________ 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

There are two bugs that I have run into with large projects. If your project is small, just use cabal sandboxes. If it is large (lots of dependent packages being developed together), there is one that might cause extra build time [0], and one that can render packages unbuildable [1]. I still use cabal sandboxes, but these are the bugs that cause me the most pain. But the joy of a linked add-source and a working cabal repl outweigh this pain. Erik [0] https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/1375 [1] https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/1362 On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:

I don't think so (barring bugs).

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Tikhon Jelvis wrote:

...

Are there any potential disadvantages?

I'm probably going to switch over regardless, but it would be nice to know. I recently saw a demo of it, and it seemed like a great addition to cabal.

On Oct 30, 2013 2:06 AM, "Johan Tibell" wrote:

...

(Note: I'm one of the developers/designers of cabal sandboxes.)

Cabal sandboxes were developed after cabal-dev and was generally an effort to bring sandboxes to the masses by integrating them into cabal proper. There are a couple of benefits to this integration:

* New features are designed with sandboxes in mind. * We can generally get a smoother integration with rest of Cabal. * We support add-source deps as links rather than copies (see the docs).

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Graham Berks wrote:

...

Can someone point me in the direction of why you would use one over the other ??

Thanks Graham

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

For small projects (few packages) cabal sandboxes are great, otherwise I still use cabal-dev. The bugs Erik mentioned and a few other annoyances (I can't find the tickets at the moment) makes cabal-dev a lot faster to work with for big projects. But these are all accepted issues so once they go away I'll make the full switch. - Adam On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Rogan Creswick wrote:

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:05 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:

...

(Note: I'm one of the developers/designers of cabal sandboxes.)

...and I'm one of the developers / maintainers of cabal-dev :)

I'll echo Johan's comments -- cabal sandboxes have the level of integration with cabal that cabal-dev could only aspire to; and as such, cabal sandboxes can do it *right* :) (add-source and cabal repl are two great examples of this already).

Cabal-dev is also not likely to be maintained very much longer, since cabal sandboxes solve the problem that cabal-dev addressed. I like to think that cabal-dev, capri, and other similar haskell sandboxing tools demonstrated that the concept was sound and useful, but cabal sandbox has taken the idea and refined it to be properly integrated and much more reliable.

tl/dr; I *strongly* suggest everyone start transitioning from cabal-dev to cabal sandboxes.

--Rogan

...

Cabal sandboxes were developed after cabal-dev and was generally an effort to bring sandboxes to the masses by integrating them into cabal proper. There are a couple of benefits to this integration:

* New features are designed with sandboxes in mind. * We can generally get a smoother integration with rest of Cabal. * We support add-source deps as links rather than copies (see the docs).

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Graham Berks wrote:

...

Can someone point me in the direction of why you would use one over the other ??

Thanks Graham

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe