Duncan Coutts wrote:
We'd like to kill off autoconf as much as possible. :-)
+1
--
Ashley Yakeley
___
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 13:08 -0400, John D. Ramsdell wrote:
> Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think I'm claiming that developers want support for developing
> > systems as a unit but distribution can be as a collection of
> > components rather than as a unit.
>
> Do you believe i
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 14:34 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > As far as I can see that covers all the cases where we might want
> > "distributions", "shipments" or "sub-packages". Of course if anyone has
> > any examples where they think our model mig
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 09:03 -0400, John D. Ramsdell wrote:
> Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The design choice is that the Cabal package is the unit of
> > distribution. Of course what one sees as a system may well consist
> > of multiple interdependent packages.
>
> I think deve
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, John D. Ramsdell wrote:
> Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It was requested several times but it seems not to be designed and
> > implemented so easily.
>
> I bet it's easier than you think. You just have to dynamically
> generate package configuration fi
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 22:21 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
>
> > > Does Cabal not support things like packages within a package simply
> > > because Haskell libraries currently are not complex enough to require
> > &
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 22:21 +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
> > Does Cabal not support things like packages within a package simply
> > because Haskell libraries currently are not complex enough to require
> > such a feature, or is there a guiding design principle with which
jects into library
and executable parts and then to allow also multiple library parts. This
way you could provide parts for special applications or different
operating systems.
> Does Cabal not support things like packages within a package simply
> because Haskell libraries currently are not c
