On 26 May 2014 23:49, Yitzchak Gale
Johan Tibell wrote:
I don't know if shipping both Cabal 1.18 and 1.20 in the HP will lead to problems. If so, I can backport the cabal-install changes to 1.18.
Mark Lentczner wrote:
all's well... Johan back ported the changes
So it's moot for this release. But in principle, what would have been the problem with having the platform installers ship with the 1.20 executable, or build the 1.20 executable in a sandbox for installers that build it, and then still ship with Cabal-1.18. in the libraries?
Linux distros that don't use pre-built binaries, especially source-based ones where having cabal-install-1.2 would require building Cabal-1.20? (Then again, unless it's people learning Haskell and being told to install the platform, I would imagine that many people on Linux wouldn't use the platform itself and just install whatever libraries they want.)
On a related note: are we sure that we want cabal-install to print the upgrade message whenever a newer version is available on hackage? If we believe it might be a problem to have a version of Cabal installed that is inconsistent with the one bundled with GHC, then why are we telling people to install it?
Maybe have that as a config option? It's still helpful for people that built cabal-install themselves and know what they're doing? -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic Ivan.Miljenovic@gmail.com http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com