The script has to go

Jake Wheat jakewheatmail at
Fri Jan 2 21:48:33 UTC 2015

I have a pull request here for review:

On 1 January 2015 at 18:43, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at> wrote:

> 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