Fix PATH changes not triggering REPL reconfiguration (#2015)

[mpickering]

When a user's PATH environment variable changes between Cabal commands, the environment in the REPL becomes incorrect. This occurs because during initial package configuration, the current PATH is captured via programSearchPathAsPATHVar and then stored in the programOverrideEnv field of a ConfiguredProgram. These ConfiguredPrograms are subsequently serialized into the setup-config file, effectively baking in the PATH environment from the time of configuration.

The issue manifests when PATH is updated after initial configuration. Although the solver re-runs when detecting PATH changes, the dryRunLocalPkg function examines ElaboratedConfiguredPackage and incorrectly determines that nothing has changed that would require reconfiguration. This decision is incorrect because setup-config now contains a stale reference to the original PATH value, which no longer matches the current environment.

To fix this problem, we need to store the ConfiguredPrograms directly in ElaboratedConfiguredPackage. This approach will ensure that when PATH changes, the ConfiguredPrograms will also change, properly triggering reconfiguration. While this solution will cause more recompilations when PATH changes, it guarantees that the correct environment is always used during builds and REPL sessions.

An alternative approach would be to stop baking the PATH variable into the environment of programs, but this would require more substantial changes to how Cabal manages environment variables.

Fixes #2015

Please read Github PR Conventions and then fill in one of these two templates.

---

Template Α: This PR modifies behaviour or interface

Include the following checklist in your PR:

• Patches conform to the coding conventions.
• Any changes that could be relevant to users have been recorded in the changelog.
  • Is the change significant? If so, remember to add significance: significant in the changelog file.
• The documentation has been updated, if necessary.
• Manual QA notes have been included.
• Tests have been added. (Ask for help if you don’t know how to write them! Ask for an exemption if tests are too complex for too little coverage!)

[Mikolaj]

Is this ready for review? If so, could you please add the label?

[mpickering]

Any reviewers? @ulysses4ever ?

1 week without movement, so I am happy to just merge it if no-one wishes to review.

[ulysses4ever]

Sorry for slow progress here: everyone was busy with the release. I'll try to take a look today.

I don't think it's possible to merge anything without reviews. Unless you're going to change repository settings, which is a big change for the project and should be discussed on a meeting.

[ulysses4ever]

I'd suggest that you mention in the commit message why adding a new field, seemingly unused anywhere, changes the behaviour (it's because of the Generic business afaiu).

[Mikolaj]

@mpickering: would you like to respond and then set the merge label maybe?