This is strange, I thought that cpphs should be specified in "build-tools:", not in "build-depends:". < http://www.haskell.org/cabal/users-guide/developing-packages.html#build-information >
Best regards, Petr 2012/12/13 Michael Snoyman <mich...@snoyman.com> > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Daniel Trstenjak < > daniel.trsten...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Michael Snoyman wrote: >> > If you have a commercial use for cpphs, and feel the terms of the (L)GPL >> > are too onerous, you have the option of distributing unmodified binaries >> > (only, not sources) under the terms of a different licence (see >> > LICENCE-commercial). >> >> I think that depedencies to binaries, like cpphs, should be treated >> differently than depedencies to libraries, because using a (L)GPL-ed >> binary mostly hasn't any implications for a "commercial" user and >> also for the output of a (L)GPL-ed binary usually the (L)GPL doesn't >> apply. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >> > > In the case of cpphs, there's no way to determine that we're using it as a > library or an executable, since it's just listed in the build-depends. > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe