On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 01:31:55PM +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
> This makes me wonder, though. Wouldn't this model make more sense for
> Cabal in general than the current approach of duplicating the
> functionality of autoconf, make and other stuff? If it works ghc, it
> ought to work for other projects, too. Cabal as a preprocessor seems
> much more attractive to me than as a universal build system.
I can't tell you how much I agree with this. the fact that cabal wants
to be my build system as well as my configuration system means it is
pretty much unusable to me in my projects.
Features are something that _hurts_ a system such as this. between a
build system, a configuration manager, a packaging system, etc, it is
rare for any large project that at least one isn't imposed on you by
some external constrant or just a better choice for the job. I would
much rather see cabals functionality split among a variety of different
programs so the pieces can be used when appropriate, not as an all or
nothing thing. (bring back hmake! :) ).
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
