Version control systems
duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Wed Aug 13 07:45:31 EDT 2008
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 16:19 +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> In a sense, it was an interesting experiment and it should still be
> useful to the development of Cabal. In fact, I see no reason why the
> experiment cannot be continued on a branch. Who knows, maybe Cabal is
> sufficiently mature in a year to make a switch worthwhile? I just
> object to using the whole GHC developer community as guinea pigs.
Sadly, I'm not so sure we've really learnt much that helps Cabal itself.
While there's been a lot of general pain I can't think of many specific
issues we've discovered in Cabal. We added a couple of minor features,
some of which we'd have needed anyway for building the libs for 6.10 (eg
due to the base-3/4 thing). As far as I can see, most of the problems
have been in the change itself and the makefile glue code.
I may well me missing some things since I've not been intimately
involved in the changes. I would most appreciate specific problems or
missing features being filed as tickets in the Cabal trac so that we can
learn things and not forget them. Roman filed #276 "Add support for
convenience libraries" and I appreciate that.
I know about the longer term need for dph for a more general 'ways'
system in ghc's package system, which will need support in Cabal. I'll
file a ticket for that one.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users