On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 14:59 -0500, Alex Jacobson wrote:
> Cabal is not a solution to this problem because
>
> 1. you want your code to work via ghci and runhaskell and perhaps via
> searchpath.
>
> 2. you may want to move a module from one package to another and you
> don't want to have to exam
Fri Nov 23 12:57:50 PST 2007 Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Add support for building libs and exes with nhc98 via hmake
Doesn't do installation yet or check for existence of dependent packages.
M ./Distribution/Simple/NHC.hs -26 +89
M ./Distribution/Simple/Program.hs -1 +9
_
Fri Nov 23 13:00:09 PST 2007 Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Workaround import bug in nhc98
Cabal can now build using itself and nhc98
M ./Distribution/Simple/SetupWrapper.hs -1 +1
___
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http:/
On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 16:26 +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> Am Freitag, 23. November 2007 03:37 schrieben Sie:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 01:50 +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
> > > Dont’t just think in terms of single modules. If I have a Cabal package,
> > > I can declare used extensions in the C
On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 09:22 +, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 02:34:43AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 01:42 +, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > > I guess you could indicate that a package won't build in some
> > > configuration using the buildable field. Ha
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 02:34:43AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 01:42 +, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > I guess you could indicate that a package won't build in some
> > configuration using the buildable field. Hackage ought to learn
> > to use that too.
>
> Oh you mean we sh
