On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:29:46PM +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, David Roundy wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Ganesh Sittampalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, David Roundy wrote: >>>> Cabalization of darcs is like debianization of darcs or rpmization of >>>> darcs. It's a good idea, but should be independent of darcs' build >>>> system. >>> >>> Could franchise's script be renamed from setup.hs to something else, to >>> avoid colliding with the name used by cabal? >> >> We could certainly rename the script, but since it strives to match >> the interface specified by cabal. > > What's the benefit in matching the command-line interface? Unless it will > integrate properly with cabal-install etc it seems more likely to cause > confusion than anything else.
It's what the cabal docs say to do. Maybe that's a bug in the cabal documentation? >> Perhaps I should rename it to Setup.hs instead? Honestly, I only made >> it lowercase because I don't like typing capital letters... (harder on >> the wrists). Naming the franchise script Setup.hs ought to make >> cabalization almost trivial, for one definition of cabalization... > > I don't think that would fit in with the way cabal does things. Unless we > can figure out how to make the two fit together properly and still get > the benefits of cabal (most importantly, the explicit dependency > declaration), it would seem better to keep them apart. Well, perhaps you should bring that up with the cabal folks. If you create a cabal file, cabal install will obey that cabal file, that's what cabal install does, and is why franchise can be installed with cabal install. Admittedly franchise has a pretty cruddy cabal file, but that's because it's automatically generated and I haven't had the motivation to do any better. David _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
