On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 05:37:32PM +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> Note that it does not rewrite the _external_ package description. Cabal
> now internally uses the section-based syntax, so we have to rewrite old
> flat package descriptions to the section-based format _internally_.
> I.e., the ac
On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 14:42 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 03:18:43PM +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> > (1) was easier at the time. (2) should be relatively easy to implement
> > now, but since the current implementation works, I didn't bother so far.
> > I know that (1) is
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 03:18:43PM +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> (1) was easier at the time. (2) should be relatively easy to implement
> now, but since the current implementation works, I didn't bother so far.
> I know that (1) is a rather hackish solution, but why is it "just
> wrong"? (Afte
On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 10:21 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> The build-depends field has been moved from the package level to the
> individual library and executable components. (And the new build-tools
> and pkgconfig-depends fields are similarly attached to components.)
> I'm not sure whether this
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 14:48 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 06:52:47PM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > Note that, at the moment hackage probably will not accept packages using
> > configurations since it will not be able to parse them.
>
> It should accept them now. But peop
The build-depends field has been moved from the package level to the
individual library and executable components. (And the new build-tools
and pkgconfig-depends fields are similarly attached to components.)
I'm not sure whether this is a good idea, but more specifically I
came across this in the
