cabal-install rebooted?

[Bardur Arantsson]

On 09/09/2015 10:08 AM, Kosyrev Serge wrote:
> Bardur Arantsson <spam at scientician.net> writes:
> 
>> On 09/09/2015 12:22 AM, Gershom B wrote:
>>> That _does_ look simpler!
>>>
>>> However, I think there are multiple efforts underway towards the
>>> nix-style stuff. We had a GSoC on that for example. And in that
>>> workflow, if it all works out properly, then we end up with a
>>> situation where since the general-user-db has no conflicts, then
>>> sandboxes are the tools that become generally not required.
>>>
>>> So I would be quite hesitant about moving things in the other direction...
>>>
>>
>> I do see some advantages to having sandboxes still, namely isolation of
>> the binaries into a single directory that you can put into $PATH, but
>> I'm assuming/hoping there's some way to handle that in nix-style
>> cabal/cabal-install as well. (If that turns out to be wrong, I imagine a
>> middle-of-the-road approach here would be to just have a single package
>> database and treat it as a simple cache of all the binaries ever
>> compiled and we could still keep sandboxing for binaries and such..That
>> might also nicely solve the problem of redudant compilation which
>> happens with sandboxes now.)
>>
>> Just out of curiousity, when is the GSoC deadline?
> 
> Success was recently announced:
> 
>   https://www.mail-archive.com/cabal-devel%40haskell.org/msg10091.html
> 

Thanks for the pointer. Not sure how I missed that.

Looks very promising -- I'll give it a whirl some time in the next few days.

Regards,