The script has to go

Johan Tibell johan.tibell at
Thu Jan 1 16:43:44 UTC 2015

See for a continuation of the
sad saga.

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Herbert Valerio Riedel <hvr at> wrote:

> On 2014-12-30 at 21:23:19 +0100, Jake Wheat wrote:
> [...]
> > Simplify the process:
> >
> > * always use a fixed set of versions of packages for the dependencies
> For me, the primary use-case of `` is to be able to build a
> matching `cabal-install` executable for a given major GHC version w/o
> requiring having an existing cabal-install executable compatible w/ the
> GHC version I'm trying to bootstrap cabal-install with.  (If I had an
> older `cabal-install` executable, I would use that to bootstrap the new
> one)
> So, if a given cabal-install's would only support
> bootstrapping via its associated GHC major version
> (e.g. cabal-install-1.22.x would require GHC 7.10.x) then I guess the
> wouldn't need to perform any significant package version
> resolving, and could just use such a single fixed set of versions (and
> preferably in a sandbox to ignore any user pkg-db) as you seem to
> propose.
> Alternatively, GHC could start bundling cabal-install, which would IMHO
> eliminate the need for a in the first place (but we had
> that discussion already, and it would also require to pull
> cabal-install's dependencies into the GHC distribution, while OTOH GHC
> is trying to avoid acquiring additional build dependencies...)
> Cheers,
>   hvr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the cabal-devel mailing list