<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Duncan Coutts <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:duncan.coutts@googlemail.com" target="_blank">duncan.coutts@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Actually, this is not quite right. Since ghc would still ship Cabal (but</span><br>
</div>
not depend on it), it would also ship its dependencies including parsec,<br>
mtl and transformers. So they would need to be up to date and installed,<br>
it's just that ghc itself would not depend on them.<br>
<br>
If that's really inconvenient, it's plausible to have a minimal set<br>
which is just the things ghc depends on, so long as what gets shipped to<br>
users is the useful set, including Cabal.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't quite like how GHC's dependencies leak out to the rest of the world. It makes it possible for us to decide what version we want to ship in the platform of those libraries. I guess we don't have a good technical solution to this problem though.</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div>