We just had a short discussion on #ghc, I copy-paste: http://lpaste.net/92639
dcoutts_: nh2: Cabal does not depend on the ghc-pkg format. Cabal specifies a compiler-independent package registration format. GHC uses it in its external interface (and internally too). It uses the Cabal lib for the parser+printer because it's easier than making its own and keeping up with spec changes.. dcoutts_: type+parser+printer nh2: dcoutts_: would it still not be easier to make this package database specification a separate thing that both ghc and cabal can depend on? It seems to me that this would be much less a moving target than Cabal-the-build-system is dcoutts_: nh2: what does make sense is to split the Cabal lib into the Distribution.* bits and the Distribution.Simple.* bits dcoutts_: nh2: it's not a natural split hvr: nh2: btw, a related thread: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2013-March/000800.html dcoutts_: nh2: there's a lot of types shared between the .cabal format and the InstalledPackageInfo type dcoutts_: as well as parser + printer infrastructure dcoutts_: nh2: it makes sense to keep that all together, that's the Distribution.* stuff dcoutts_: as I said, what does make sense to split (it's been deliberately kept mostly-separate) is the Distribution.Simple.* part dcoutts_: nh2: and we need a parser for that part, that's the dependency that's annoying thoughtpolice: so yes, i'm going to look into it today if at all possible nh2: dcoutts_: that makes sense. ghc does not depend on Distribution.PackageDescription either, right? dcoutts_: nh2: right, it doesn't need the source package type (PackageDescription), just the installed package type (InstalledPackageInfo) dcoutts_: nh2: but splitting these into different packages would not buy us much and it's not a natural split nh2: leaving away Distribution.Simple.*, the remaining part is already so small that it indeed looks like a small enough interface dcoutts_: nh2: it'd only help JP M if the remaining part (lets call it cabal-build-simple) could build with an earlier core part (lets call it cabal-lib) (in his request in http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2013-September/108746.html) dcoutts_: nh2: and doesn't help me with my parser problems, we still cannot depend on a decent parser combinator lib dcoutts_: still have to use the crappy ReadP nh2: dcoutts_: Distribution.PackageDescription is the .cabal file format itself, right? Not sure if that should be part of the package DB spec, it changes more often and ghc can't make use of it nh2: why is it that you cannot depend on something better? dcoutts_: nh2: because ghc cannot depend on parsec easily dcoutts_: because it pulls in too many other things dcoutts_: the ghc devs objected to my suggestion dcoutts_: nh2: that's true but what does it really buy us if they're in separate packages? We still cannot guarantee to support JP M's request dcoutts_: e.g. in the switch to 1.18, there have been enough changes that we'd need the latest version of the InstalledPackageInfo hvr: dcoutts_: ...seems you have to explain that again everytime somebody brings it up =) nh2: dcoutts_: but do I not understand it right that if you put PackageDescription not into cabal-lib and only in Cabal, Cabal could actually depend on a proper parser since GHC doesn't depend on it any more? dcoutts_: nh2: it's not a monolithic parser dcoutts_: nh2: we have that Text class dcoutts_: with the combinator parsers for all the various types used in .cabal and installed package files dcoutts_: these types + parser/printer infrastructure are shared between the source and installed package files dcoutts_: so even if we split it, we still have the problem of needing a parser lib lemao: dcoutts_: I hear you wrt to the difficulties and mixed results of splitting Distribution.Simple at the same time that this GHC dependency on cabal is really problematic for all the reasons already discussed dcoutts_: lemao: I don't think splitting it would fix that lemao: dcoutts_: yes, I hear you. Maybe the right solution here is to have GHC own their own internal package info impl so Cabal and GHC can go their separate ways dcoutts_: you'd still have ghc depending on this smaller part, and Cabal/cabal-install would still depend on (usually) the latest version of that dcoutts_: lemao: but that's also not satisfactory (for cabal-lib to be a private dep of ghc) because ghc api exposes the InstalledPackageInfo type dcoutts_: it's not a private dependency of the ghc api package, it's a public dependency lemao: dcoutts_: I guess what I meant is that ghc-pkg package format/parser/etc would be a complete fork dcoutts_: which then means you cannot pass the InstalledPackageInfo from ghc api functions to anything else lemao: dcoutts_: at the same time that there are issues with the split there are real issues witht he current status quo dcoutts_: as well as meaning it'd get out of sync nh2: dcoutts_: InstalledPackageInfo looks like a very simple/straightforward type though dcoutts_: nh2: on it's own, but it uses a bunch of other types + their parsers+printers dcoutts_: nh2: and are we really saying that we could always work with old versions of this type, that we'd never need to depend on the latest version in the latest version of Cabal? dcoutts_: because if not, then we gain nothing lemao: dcoutts_, nh2: real question here, how often does the package info that matters for ghc actually changed in the past? dcoutts_: lemao: it does change occasionally dcoutts_: and it will change again dcoutts_: we have changes pending lemao: dcoutts_, nh2: I can see how most of the drivers for these changes come from cabal nh2: dcoutts_: I can't see many other types, there are only two: License (a simple enum) and Version. Everything else is String/Bool dcoutts_: nh2: PackageName, PackageId etc nh2: dcoutts_: are both string newtypes dcoutts_: nh2: but note also that it uses the same parser infrastructure nh2: dcoutts_: would you mind if I open a bug to discuss this? lemao: nh2: maybe what is needed here is a concrete proposal lemao: nh2: so this can be discussed in more detail? lemao: nh2: I guess a ticket would be a great start On 06/09/13 23:52, JP Moresmau wrote: > Interesting: in the ghc-devs discussion, Duncan talks about a cabal-lib > and a cabal-build-simple split > (http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/2013-March/000821.html). That > would solve my problem nicely (GHC could depend on cabal-lib only, that > wouldn't have to change as often as cabal-build-simple). I don't see a > trace of that split in 1.18, anybody knows if it's still on the map? > And thanks everybody for the contributions, it looks I'm not the only > one that had thought about that issue... _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
