On 14 jun 2007, at 19.27, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:18 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Thomas Schilling wrote:
it's still a little work to do, but I think I'll be able to try
and use
Cabal configurations some time next week. Do you guys have any
ideas
what we could use as a good test case?
The goal is to find out how well the current scheme applies to
actual
use cases (and if there are serious performance problems to await).
Some suggestions:
- the base package has a lot of goop in its Setup script, I
really hope
that all, or at least most, of it can be done using
configurations
- we have a few packages that want to do conditional
dependencies. e.g.
HGL wants to depend on either Win32 or X11.
- IIRC, gtk2hs has a complex structure that will need a lot of
conditional
stuff in its .cabal file. Duncan will tell you more.
Unfortunately there's still a lot of work before Gtk2Hs is ready to be
cabalised. Cabal configurations is a major piece of the puzzle though.
But sadly there are too many other bits before Gtk2Hs would be a
suitable test case for configurations.
A cut down model of Gtk2Hs might work though, ie a bunch of .cabal
files
modelling the various bits of Gtk2Hs, just without any of the actual
source code.
- take a look at the old discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED];
there were
lots of use cases discussed there.
Many related to fps/bytestring being included in the base package or
not.
Is there some centralized documentation of these changes? Or should
I just browse through the mailing lists? E.g., it looks like GHC
doesn't have a .cabal file yet, so I'd have to manually translate to
the Makefile, which I presume would be a major undertaking. Same
applies for gtk2hs, whose ugliness I had to experience earlier.
/ Thomas
_______________________________________________
cabal-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
