On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:30:13 -0700, Jason Dagit wrote: > Cool. It's good to be talking about these on the public mailing list.
Yep! Some folks might find the discussion to be noisy, but if you would bear with us a little longer, we will soon have a working build system for Windows with no crazy Unixy tools! > Which library does the installation? If cabal is the one taking the risk of > screwing up my system that makes me feel a lot better about running > install. For now it's franchise that's doing all of the work. The patch (actually the revised patch I sent later) brings us to a cabal/franchise mix of 10/90. I intend to post a summary in the original enfranchising darcs thread. > I'd also prefer if we could get cabal doing the build, if only > because cabal has the nice feature of not cluttering src/ with intermediate > files. Maybe franchise has the feature and it's turned off by default? This is evidence for the 'build systems are a timesink' argument for what it's worth. > > * Dependency information is ignored, and is provided on a purely advisory > > basis only > Hmm...then how is it calculated? I guess I'll have to try it out to see. > In particular ambiguity and conflict resolution between packages may be an > issue. I'm afraid I don't understand the question. The Haskell package dependencies are written by hand in the Cabal file and are simply not used, except maybe by cabal-install. > > * I disabled building the documentation for now because I would find setup > > hanging (?) on a pdfetex step > Obviously you were busy with the rest of this, but have you had a chance to > mention this to Duncan or put a bug in the cabal bug tracker? Or is this a > franchise bug? If anything I'm betting this is a bug in our current Setup.hs. Maybe David will have ideas. > If we're going to be serious about pushing franchise on people then we need > to get serious about making a community website for it so that bug reports, > feature requests, and user questions have an obvious place to go. As David mentions, http://groups.google.com/group/franchise-haskell Maybe a code.google.com page to get an issue tracker would be useful > Ah, so I could still build with cabal just by renaming locally. That's > handy. I don't have franchise installed. Note that my less ambitious patch does not include a Setup.lhs for Cabal. If it goes in, I might submit one that puts a Setup-cabal.lhs in the release/ directory. > Looking here: > http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/separate-compilation.html#search-path > It looks like -i resets the search path during compilation. So are you > saying, it's hard to have uninstalled code be part of Setup.hs unless it's > actually at the same directory level or inside of Setup.hs? I think I was mistaken and my troubles were due to using an older version of cabal-install. (Actually I had upgraded, but somehow continued to use the older cabal-install) With cabal-install 0.5.2, the Distribution.Darcs idea works. -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgpRfHP3H2Gme.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
