Simon Marlow:
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
To be honest, if you ask me, I'd go back to the old makefile based
system and remove Cabal from everywhere except building of the
library packages.
I wouldn't object to dropping the use of Cabal for other tools in
the build tree; the reasons for using it elsewhere are certainly not
as compelling as for packages.
Ian, I realise this means backing out a lot of the work you've been
doing recently, and it would mean that we'd lose a lot of time in
the runup to 6.10.1, but perhaps it's a step that we need to take to
get us back on the right track again?
I do realise that this would mean backing out a lot of Ian recent
work, and that's why I haven't proposed going back to the old system
before you explicitly asked. However, I am increasingly getting the
feeling that the move to Cabal was pre-mature, and the overall loss
will be minimised by backing out now.
In a sense, it was an interesting experiment and it should still be
useful to the development of Cabal. In fact, I see no reason why the
experiment cannot be continued on a branch. Who knows, maybe Cabal is
sufficiently mature in a year to make a switch worthwhile? I just
object to using the whole GHC developer community as guinea pigs.
Manuel
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
