> haven't actually looked at the patch. Does the cabal support replace the > makefile? That'd be great, it'd be a bummer to have a distinct mechanism > for building documentation, and I don't know how flexible cabal is, in > terms of serving as a replacement for make. Or is the cabal stuff actually > rather light-weight, in which case it wouldn't be burdensome? Also, does > cabal allow us to represent the fact that darcs depends on unix on unixy > systems, but on win32 in windowy systems, and things like that?
For now, it's completely parallel. One thing which troubles me is getting all the extra features right, like git, etc. There's also the issue of compilation flags, for example, getting all the right optimisations. It's also extremely lightweight, and extensible via Haskell. One thing I plan to do is to move the stringify code into our Setup.lhs as a prebuild hook, so that we won't have to do make src/Context.hs I suspect that the easiest way to use it is to leave all extra functionality in the Makefile, but to move the darcs compilation to the Cabal. This will greatly simplify the Makefile, for example, no more adding modules to it, and the configure script; no more package checks to handwrite. Furthermore, we can use Conal Elliot's cabal-make makefile snippets to integrate the two so that you can continue to just use the Makefile and have it call the right Cabal options. -- Eric Kow http://www.loria.fr/~kow PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9 Merci de corriger mon français.
pgplTUMEvtZPm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
