I wrote:
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?
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
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?
It would be built only on the machine building the package, and there only inside a sandbox. It would not need to be part of the distro itself.
(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.)
Generally, it makes sense for *users* of Haskell - whether beginners or not - to start with the platform. People working on developing the Haskell ecosystem might start with a more recent GHC, but even then the platform often makes sense as a default starting point.
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?
Maybe have that as a config option? It's still helpful for people that built cabal-install themselves and know what they're doing?
Makes sense. Thanks, Yitz