On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 12:20 +1000, Conrad Parker wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:29:00PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 14:50 +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > First off, being a windows user, having a configure/build separation > > > seems a bit unusual. > > > > It's more for developers I'd say. It means you can configure once and > > then build, modify code, build, modify code etc etc without having to > > reconfigure each time. > > That makes a lot of sense for (say) GNU autotools, where a fairly > straightforward configure check for a few libraries can take a minute or > so. With a faster configuration system (such as cabal), it may not be > necessary. > > I was very impressed with SCons when I ported some C code to use it > rather than autotools -- the scons version configured and built (in > one step, 'scons' with no arguments) in less time than autotools took to > ./configure :)
Yes ./configure is very slow, but there is another reason too. runghc Setup.lhs configure --with-compiler=ghc-6.5.20060724 --with-hc-pkg=ghc-6.5.20060724 --enable-library-profiling I do not want to have to specify all that each time I build. With a configure/build split I specify it once and can then build many times. > > It would be great if it worked out what was needed and only checked for > > those, and then all failures could be reported. > > perhaps the developer could specify (in the .cabal file or so) which tools > are actually required to build; I'm guessing this would require extra > fields (not covered by build-depends or extensions). Perhaps something > like build-tools or required-tools/optional-tools? In most cases Cabal already knows which tools to use. The only time we might need a "build-tools" field is to specify that particular versions a required. Duncan _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
