Skip to content

Improve the user experience around sandboxes with multiple source packages #2631

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
2 of 8 tasks
tibbe opened this issue May 31, 2015 · 7 comments
Closed
2 of 8 tasks

Comments

@tibbe
Copy link
Member

tibbe commented May 31, 2015

  • Allow the cabal binary itself to be used as a Setup.hs file, removing errors related to not having the right version of Cabal installed/available (e.g. when doing parallel builds.) (Allow using cabal program itself as the external setup method #2633)
  • Track down and fix issue (probably timestamp related) with unnecessary rebuilds in source packages that haven't changed.
  • Allow build targets that include package names/directories, not just components in the current directory.
  • Implicit "add-source" for packages in subdirectories.
  • Allow dist/ to live inside the sandbox directory, rather than in the package directory.
  • Search upwards for sandbox directory.
  • Cabal configure should produce and save an install plan. Cabal build should install the plan (by invoking cabal install --only-dep).
  • Come up with catchy title for issue.

/cc @dcoutts

@BardurArantsson
Copy link
Collaborator

Is there any of this that a noob such as myself could help with? (And which would have value on as a feature of its own.)

@dcoutts
Copy link
Contributor

dcoutts commented Jun 25, 2015

@BardurArantsson you could have a look at the one "Search upwards for sandbox directory". It shouldn't be hard to implement, and then you'd want to play around with it a bit and see if there's any unexpected issues with that approach.

@BardurArantsson
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks, I'll have a look at that tomorrow (or the day after). Hopefully, it's pretty independent of the rest of all the others?

(I think I can already theoretically foresee a few issues wrt. backward compatibility, but we'll see, I guess...)

@dcoutts
Copy link
Contributor

dcoutts commented Jun 25, 2015

@BardurArantsson yeah, should be independent.

@BardurArantsson
Copy link
Collaborator

EDIT: Removed comment because it was just noise

@BardurArantsson
Copy link
Collaborator

Ok, so I've added a new issue #2810 for the "Search upwards..." sub-task. Could someone please edit it into the first post on this issue?

I'll do a pull req for #2810 shortly just for initial review.

@phadej
Copy link
Collaborator

phadej commented Aug 31, 2020

sandbox functionality is removed.

@phadej phadej closed this as completed Aug 31, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants