Gearing up (again) for the next release: 2014.2.0.0

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljenovic at
Tue May 27 10:27:45 UTC 2014

On 27 May 2014 20:23, Yitzchak Gale <gale at> wrote:
> I wrote:
>>> 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?
> Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
>> 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?
> It would be built only on the machine building the package,
> and there only inside a sandbox. It would not need to be part
> of the distro itself.

Source-based distros build everything on every machine, and I don't
know of any that use sandboxes (as that would defeat part of the

>> (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.)
> Generally, it makes sense for *users* of Haskell - whether
> beginners or not - to start with the platform. People working on
> developing the Haskell ecosystem might start with a more recent
> GHC, but even then the platform often makes sense as a default
> starting point.

*shrug* I always only installed the packages that I needed.

>>> 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?
>> Maybe have that as a config option? It's still helpful for people that
>> built cabal-install themselves and know what they're doing?
> Makes sense.
> Thanks,
> Yitz

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at

More information about the Libraries mailing list