Hello Paul,
Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 4:48:55 PM, you wrote:
>>./Setup.lhs configure -p
>>./Setup.lhs build
>>./Setup.lhs install
> I come from a Python background, and Python's distutils (which feels
> very like cabal - or should that be the other way round?) tends to
> have later
claus.reinke:
> >>absolutely, this has occurred to me too. There should be a stanard Cabal
> >>README file, and Don's mkcabal tool could drop it in the tree.
> >
> >This occurred to me too. My current plan for mkcabal is that it creates:
> >
> > foo.cabal
> > Setup.lhs
> > README
> > LICE
Hi
> have later commands include earlier ones. So,
>
>setup.py install
>
> automatically does "build" (there is no explicit configure step).
Sounds entirely reasonable to me. Though configure takes a bunch of arguments;
so if configure is run automatically it'll always be with the default
Paul Moore wrote:
On 12/12/06, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm possibly using cabal in a simplistic way, but I generally do either
./Setup.lhs configure -p
./Setup.lhs build
./Setup.lhs install
[...]
This is a lot of typing, and at least once I wrote a Makefile to
autom
absolutely, this has occurred to me too. There should be a stanard Cabal
README file, and Don's mkcabal tool could drop it in the tree.
This occurred to me too. My current plan for mkcabal is that it creates:
foo.cabal
Setup.lhs
README
LICENSE
based on a series of interactive ques
On 12/12/06, Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm possibly using cabal in a simplistic way, but I generally do either
./Setup.lhs configure -p
./Setup.lhs build
./Setup.lhs install
[...]
This is a lot of typing, and at least once I wrote a Makefile to
automate it (oh, the irony
Simon Marlow wrote:
+ add a dedicated command "cabal", which does nothing more
than "runhaskell Setup", but is more memorable and suggestive
cabal-setup does this, but wasn't included with the latest release of
Cabal. It should be in the next one, I hope. The plan is to
deprecate
simonmarhaskell:
> Claus Reinke wrote:
>
> >cabal:
> > - the separation into interpreter/compiler and resource as Setup
> > does not set up the right mindset in users. for instance, you can
> > "runhaskell Setup.hs --help" as for most unixy tools, but who'd
> > think of that in
Claus Reinke wrote:
cabal:
- the separation into interpreter/compiler and resource as Setup
does not set up the right mindset in users. for instance, you can
"runhaskell Setup.hs --help" as for most unixy tools, but who'd
think of that in this situation, and how much does
