Isaac Jones wrote: > Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> - fix the handling of 'x-' fields - with the previous patch cabal would > >> complain about these as unknown in most contexts > > Right, it shouldn't ever complain / warn about x-fields, right?
Indeed. I had missed that parseBInfoField handled those. > Cool. I'm OK with it, but worried about Simon's patch that does the > same thing. Simon, can you tease out that patch in short order and > compare it side-by-side w/ Bertram's? Should we just go ahead and > apply Bertram's? I'm happy either way. It's not an urgent change, it just seemed to be the right thing to do, in order to add new library stanzas. > So this is done w/ a field rather than a flag to configure, but it > sounds more like a configure option in most cases, no? Shouldn't this > be up to the user more than the package author? It should be a pretty > rare package that's meant to be hidden by default. I wanted this for lambdabot - it's a stand-alone application, but it's plugin-based; one of the plugin's utilities (runplugs) has an auxillary module (ShowQ) that's arguably not useful for general use. To install it properly, a hidden package seemed to be the right thing. And after refactoring the parsing of the package description adding support for that to Distribution.Simple is a very simple change to Cabal. > We could always have both a field and a configure flag. That makes sense to me, actually. regards, Bertram _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
