On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:55:09AM +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote: > > I see. So it looks at the Build-Type in the package description and > calls the right defaultMain if it's not Custom. And if my Setup.hs > isn't standard then it's my responsibility to set the Build-Type to > Custom in the .cabal file and this isn't checked, right?
Nothing checks that Setup.hs behaves as the Build-Type claims it does, no. > I wonder, though. What exactly does this buy us? Duncan says: > > >The point being that linking default Setup.hs scripts all the time > >is a > >waste (especially since it doesn't parallelise). > > But the time spent in compiling those Setup.hs is negligible The time taken and disk space used weren't entirely negligible, especially on arches without object splitting. I think it also makes the Makefiles simpler overall. > >>What is runghc.wrapper? > > > >it's a template used to make a shell wrapper for a binary. There > >seems to be new functionality in Cabal to support this. > > I see. Is runghc the only program we do this for? Or will others be > added gradually? No, hsc2hs, ghc-pkg and ghc also have wrappers. I'm adding them as I move utils over to build with Cabal rather than the old build system. The reason there was a patch just adding a wrapper for runghc is that I forgot to "darcs add" it in an earlier patch. n.b. these wrappers are essentially the same as the old C and shell script wrappers that the old build system made. > >> (and why doesn't one of them work for dph)? > > Because it does non-standard stuff in Setup.hs and hence no Makefile > can be generated. Hence the SUBDIRS_BUILD hackery in libraries/ > Makefile, I assume. Exactly. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
