News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Haskell Packages for Development by jfischoff on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @02:49PM (#7780004)
Sandboxing is merely a stop-gap to reproducible builds (I hope). Nix style multiple instances of the same version of an installed package will lead to better reuse, thus faster builds.

If the fingerprints can be made precise enough, binary caches can be distributed from trusted parties, similar to what other package managers do.

Re:Haskell Packages for Development by lomnakkus on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @02:59PM (#7780062)
Hopefully we can also get real module interfaces[0] in the not-too-distant future so we can at least lessen some of the spurious diamond dependency problems that tend to crop up once in a while.

[0] http://plv.mpi-sws.org/backpack/

Re:Haskell Packages for Development by jfischoff on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @03:10PM (#7780121)
I think for modules to help here, the interface would have to not change between versions, useful for ByteString, not so much for Yesod.

As it stands now, cabal's constraint solver will prevent the installation of a package that indirectly depends on two different versions of the same package. This is too bad, because it is not necessarily true the package will fail to install.

Ideally cabal could somehow know which types are exported and which are not. In lieu of that, I personally I would prefer to have a chance of a successful install, and get a compiler error if things really do conflict, instead of a conservative constraint solver error.

Re:Haskell Packages for Development by lomnakkus on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @03:53PM (#7780382)
Certainly it's not going to be a panacea, but if you are familiar with O'Caml or SML you can hopefully sort of see how it's going to be of immense help when dealing with "trivial" package upgrades and such.

Hopefully Yesod will also (if/when this Backpack thing comes to fruition) expose some sort of stable interface for, say, the 5.x series. I think Michael has been very good about keeping things compatible, given the current constraints on the ecosystem, so I imagine he'd be very interested in declaring a stable interface explicitly if that were possible.

Re:Haskell Packages for Development by cordite on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @03:17PM (#7780159)
Just a thought, why not have fingerprints be like a Merkle tree?

A (naive) example: a built package has the hash derived from the package identity and all dependency hashes at compile / link time.

Re:Haskell Packages for Development by jfischoff on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @03:20PM (#7780174)
This is the plan I think, or something like it.

Currently package are referred to by unique hash that sort of works this way, but there are few unfortunate restrictions in GHC and cabal that need to be lifted to allow future installations to not conflict with past installations (multiple instances of the same version, right now there can only be one foo-0.1.0.0 even though it also has a unique hash).

Re:Haskell Packages for Development by zimbatm on Wednesday May 21, 2014 @06:07PM (#7781043)
Note that it's not optimal either, a small variation in a root dependency can trigger the recompilation of the whole tree, even if the change is backward-compatible.