I definitely think impl(ghc) should cover GHCJS, as it effectively just is a GHC backend (even if not part of GHC). Doing otherwise would be a bit like having impl(ghc) be false when compiling with -fllvm IMHO. The value of GHCJS is that it's supposed to be able to compile most existing packages as-is.
Just my two cents. :-) On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Luite Stegeman <stege...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think we should definitely fix the packages, not put a hack in Cabal. > > > In the latest hackage archive, there are 462 packages that use the > impl(ghc) flag, including lots of very common packages. For example binary: > > if impl(ghc >= 7.2.1) > cpp-options: -DGENERICS > other-modules: Data.Binary.Generic > if impl(ghc <= 7.6) > -- prior to ghc-7.4 generics lived in ghc-prim > build-depends: ghc-prim > > Is there a generic way to do this without impl ghc checks? Otherwise all > these impl(ghc >= x) flag checks have to be changed to impl(ghc >= x) || > impl(ghcjs >= y), not something I'd be looking forward to... > > Also I personally don't really see it as a hack (of course I'm biased > since I've been using it for a while). It just allows you to specify that > "compiler x is based on compiler y", so that unless explicitly queried > otherwise you can assume that flags for 'y' hold for 'x'. > > luite > > _______________________________________________ > cabal-devel mailing list > cabal-devel@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel > >
_______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
