Gearing up (again) for the next release: 2014.2.0.0

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljenovic at
Mon May 26 23:14:59 UTC 2014

On 26 May 2014 23:49, Yitzchak Gale <gale at> wrote:
> Johan Tibell  wrote:
>>> I don't know if shipping both Cabal 1.18 and 1.20 in
>>> the HP will lead to problems. If so, I can backport
>>> the cabal-install changes to 1.18.
> Mark Lentczner wrote:
>> all's well... Johan back ported the changes
> So it's moot for this release. But in principle, what would
> have been the problem with having the platform installers
> ship with the 1.20 executable, or build the 1.20 executable
> in a sandbox for installers that build it, and then still ship
> with Cabal-1.18. in the libraries?

Linux distros that don't use pre-built binaries, especially
source-based ones where having cabal-install-1.2 would require
building Cabal-1.20?

(Then again, unless it's people learning Haskell and being told to
install the platform, I would imagine that many people on Linux
wouldn't use the platform itself and just install whatever libraries
they want.)

> On a related note: are we sure that we want cabal-install
> to print the upgrade message whenever a newer version
> is available on hackage? If we believe it might be a
> problem to have a version of Cabal installed that is
> inconsistent with the one bundled with GHC, then why
> are we telling people to install it?

Maybe have that as a config option? It's still helpful for people that
built cabal-install themselves and know what they're doing?

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at

More information about the Libraries mailing list