[GHC] #1338: base package breakup

[GHC]

#1338: base package breakup
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
    Reporter:  simonmar          |        Owner:                  
        Type:  task              |       Status:  new             
    Priority:  normal            |    Milestone:  6.12 branch     
   Component:  libraries/base    |      Version:  6.6.1           
    Severity:  normal            |   Resolution:                  
    Keywords:                    |   Difficulty:  Unknown         
    Testcase:                    |           Os:  Unknown/Multiple
Architecture:  Unknown/Multiple  |  
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Comment (by mokus):

 Replying to [comment:35 simonmar]:
 > Why not make a `safe-base` package that re-exports everything from
 `base` except the unsafe bits?

 That's exactly what I've got right now, and it works fairly well, but it
 seems to make the process of building safe hackage packages more complex
 than it could be because I either have to manually "port" each one I want
 to use or do what I'm doing now which is to use a cabal-install-like build
 driver that automatically converts dependencies on base to dependencies on
 safe-base, hoping it really works.  If the "real" base were safe I would
 still be using a fairly customized build tool for other analysis, but it
 would make for two less things I have to worry about.  First, I would not
 have to modify the PackageDescription, and second, I could have more
 confidence that a given package will actually successfully build, which I
 cannot generally expect if I'm dynamically substituting a false base that
 the package has not necessarily ever been compiled against.

 I can certainly put my wrapper package up on hackage, and I'd hope it
 would get used when base is not needed but I'm rather doubtful that it
 would given that all it does is pretend to be base and provide less
 functionality.  But then again, the Haskell community has surprised me
 many times before, and I would not be very surprised to be wrong about
 that.

 If that winds up being the official recommendation then I can do so
 without too much trouble, but I think the idea of making base itself type-
 safe was at least worth bringing up.  It seems to me rather appealing on a
 philosophical level as well, though of course that's not in itself a good
 enough reason to trump practical concerns.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1338#comment:36>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler