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 +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
What's the advantage of making it optional, especially now we have
mkcabal to make the defaultMain Setup.lhs for us? It would be much
simpler, IMO, if it was the case that all cabal packages have a
Setup.lhs file.
As we need to support the presence of a Setup.lhs, no tool can be made
simpler by allowing it to be absent (and many will need a little extra
complexity to cope), and the only saving is a tiny amount of compilation
for one (admittedly common) case.
Lets we forget, the main reason for wanting cabal-setup was so that it can read
the .cabal file and select the right version of the Cabal package to use when
reading Setup.l?hs, so we can handle Setup.lhs scripts that depend on particular
versions of the Cabal API. It has been quite common to encounter compile errors
in Setup.lhs scripts recently, and this is very confusing for users.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
