Kristen Kozak

> According to [this comment](https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/9159#issuecomment-1862621844) this seems like a precursor to #9159 . The original change in #9159 was split into a refactoring change and a fix for #4251. Now...

> Update: I am not able find any significant differences between the behavior of the code in this PR and in #9541 . Isn't this PR an updated version of...

Here is the current state of each of the PRs, as I understand it: #9159: It contains two commits (b20ea537f7eee5058a50204e2e16856233052613 and f10dbcf7872927622250f25b463bb608882737a9) that refactor the code in preparation for the...

I meant that this PR already contains the contents of e4775b426c8aac4229509b51f98cc0f024c60478 (removing duplicate package names, similar to #9560), so I was wondering if you were planning to make more changes...

@erikd I feel like I still don't understand the reason for this PR, given that #9560 was already merged. What is your goal in updating #9541?

I think that it's fine to merge just the refactoring, especially just replacing `String` with `SummarizedMessage`. #9159 still has a lot of unaddressed code review comments, though. I could try...

Do you happen to still have the changes to cabal-install-solver from the draft? They looked like safe changes.

@erikd Is this ready for review again?

Here are my thoughts, so far. At a minimum, the solver should keep track of dependencies between packages' components. (I think that it currently tracks dependencies from components to packages.)...

Here is a first pass at a design: ### Summary - This design isn't 100% component-based: We keep package variables and add one boolean variable for each component. However, the...