Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:57:50AM -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:
Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 01:36:13AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
Note that in future we intend to allow there being no Setup.(l)hs at all
when using cabal-setup. No Setup.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 03:32:52AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 18:28 +, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > In that sense, there's only one value (Custom), but defaultMain is
> > common, and a reasonable number of packages use
> >
> > main = defaultMainWithHooks defaultUserHo
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 18:28 +, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 12:28:56AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > It's not clear to me that we need to have an extra field. I had
> > originally envisaged that cabal-setup would just find the right compiler
> > to build Setup.(l)hs and if
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 06:28:35PM +, Ross Paterson wrote:
>
> > Can't the Simple/Custom distinction be simply if the Setup.(l)hs is
> > present or not?
>
> If you have a field, cabal-setup can avoid compiling Setup.[l]hs in the
> common cases.
It would be nice to avoid allowing the possibil
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 06:41:16PM +, Neil Mitchell wrote:
>
> Another advantage of not having a Setup.hs file is that you can't get
> your machine taken over just by installing a package. The library
> author would have to be much more creative.
Only if cabal-setup uses defaultMain rather th
Hi
In that sense, there's only one value (Custom), but defaultMain is
common, and a reasonable number of packages use
main = defaultMainWithHooks defaultUserHooks
I had a value for Distribution.Make.defaultMain too (but I don't know
if anyone uses that).
> Can't the Simple/Custom dist
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 12:28:56AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> It's not clear to me that we need to have an extra field. I had
> originally envisaged that cabal-setup would just find the right compiler
> to build Setup.(l)hs and if there was none that it'd use defaultMain
> (possibly without need
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 15:06 -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:
> >> Ross, how do you see the fields panning out? Want to implement it? :)
> >
> > Something like
> >
> > Build-Type: (Simple|Configure|Make|Custom)
> >
> > I'd be happy to implement it, if/when we get agreement.
>
> Cool. What do others
Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:57:50AM -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:
>> So a summary of the new rules would be something like:
>>
>> * Setup.lhs will be found automatically, as it is now.
>>
>> * Setup.hs will be found and complained about with an error. Mayb
Lemmih <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11/27/06, Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, Isaac Jones wrote:
>>
>> > I anticipate some objections, because some people _hate_ .lhs, but we
>> > can see how it goes; in that case, they could always use the
>> > user-su
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 03:27:31PM -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:
>
> I see your point about layered tools needing to do a somewhat more
> complex check for Setup.lhs. Really, layered tools should try to use
> cabal-setup and let that tool handle finding the Setup file (or not)
> but cabal-setup isn't
On 11/27/06, Henning Thielemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, Isaac Jones wrote:
> I anticipate some objections, because some people _hate_ .lhs, but we
> can see how it goes; in that case, they could always use the
> user-supplied field to tell cabal layered tools to use the
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, Isaac Jones wrote:
> I anticipate some objections, because some people _hate_ .lhs, but we
> can see how it goes; in that case, they could always use the
> user-supplied field to tell cabal layered tools to use the
> Setup.Foo.Hs or whatever the user wants.
What about a sepa
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:57:50AM -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:
> So a summary of the new rules would be something like:
>
> * Setup.lhs will be found automatically, as it is now.
>
> * Setup.hs will be found and complained about with an error. Maybe in
> the interim, we can have a warning. In t
Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:57:50AM -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:
>> Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 01:36:13AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
>> >> Note that in future we intend to allow there being no Setup.(l)hs at all
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:57:50AM -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:
> Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 01:36:13AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> >> Note that in future we intend to allow there being no Setup.(l)hs at all
> >> when using cabal-setup. No Setup.(l)hs fi
Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 01:36:13AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
>> Note that in future we intend to allow there being no Setup.(l)hs at all
>> when using cabal-setup. No Setup.(l)hs file would be equivalent to the
>> basic one that uses defaultMain.
>
> C
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 01:36:13AM +, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> Note that in future we intend to allow there being no Setup.(l)hs at all
> when using cabal-setup. No Setup.(l)hs file would be equivalent to the
> basic one that uses defaultMain.
Could we have an optional field in the package descr
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 18:43 +, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> There are also a couple of larger problems I've had. For example, when
> writing a Makefile that builds all cabal packages in subdirectories
> (i.e. (re)make setup if necessary, configure and build) it is hard (for
> me at least!) to tell make
19 matches
Mail list logo
