Removing GHC's dependency on Cabal

Joachim Breitner mail at
Thu Jul 24 14:07:14 UTC 2014


Am Donnerstag, den 24.07.2014, 14:56 +0100 schrieb Edward Z.Yang:
> We were wondering if there was any reason to prefer the former
> situation over the latter. 

One way to decide that is to ask “What is the more stable interface”?
I.e. under what circumstances will upgrading Cabal require upgrading
packages depended upon by ghc.

So while Duncan’s Proposal has no such dependency, in Simon’s proposal
there is one. Will ghc-db’s interface be stable enough that the Cabal
developers will be happy to build against a very old version of it?


Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de
  Jabber: nomeata at  • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
  Debian Developer: nomeata at

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the cabal-devel mailing list