Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 01:36:13AM +0000, 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 description to tell > cabal-setup which setup to use? There could be tokens representing > > main = Distribution.Simple.defaultMain > main = Distribution.Simple.defaultMainWithHooks defaultUserHooks > main = Distribution.Make.defaultMain
Since we've decided to go with making Setup.[l]hs optional, I agree that this is the way to go, except: > user-supplied Setup.[l]hs Hmm. This one is a little funny, since it's the Setup program (or cabal-setup) that's reading the .cabal file, but it kinda makes sense :) I also like Ian's suggestion, and it would be good to do it all at the same time, while providing warnings for Setup.hs users. 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 interum, we can have a warning. In the common case, the error can be fixed by deleting Setup.hs and using cabal-setup :) * Setup will become optional, and cabal-setup will do the job of defaultMain (or whatever is in the new field). * A new field will be introduced to indicate what kind of build system cabal-setup should use, in the absense of a Setup.lhs file. 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. Ross, how do you see the fields panning out? Want to implement it? :) peace, isaac _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
