On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Petr Rockai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (I am quoting Duncan in full, since I forgot to cc darcs-users in the first > place. My original message should hit the list shortly as well.) > > Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> People sometimes suggest we should have a feature flag we turn on in >> devel vs release builds for this kind of thing. >> >> One nice thing about the way cabal files currently work is that they >> encode the decisions that developers need to make on behalf of users, >> but that then user choices are not in the .cabal file but expressed as >> configure flags (eg to build with profiling, optimisation or docs). >> >> Sometimes of course devs need to various combinations of configure flags >> for their standard development / debugging / testing builds. >> >> One way to do that would not involve encoding all that stuff into >> the .cabal file would be to have optional build configuration files that >> the developers use. Basically it'd consist of a set of flags that are >> passed to cabal configure (though with a more config-file-like syntax). >> >> Indeed it'd be pretty similar to the ~/.cabal/config file but it would >> apply just to that package. >> >> That would let you add things to the local config file like: >> >> ghc-options: -Werror > Now, that sounds plausible to me. It might need some way to hint people at > that > file when they try to figure why something is being done and they can't find > why from the cabal file. (Printing a one-line notice that we are using > options from ./foo-bar maybe?) > >> >> and there's no reason why such files could not be put into a darcs repo. >> Though obviously they cannot be included into a distribution tarball >> (cabal sdist and cabal/hackage check would enforce that). >> >> Sound reasonable? Should we file a cabal-install feature request? > Yes, it does (to me, at least). What do you think, Dmitry? I think other > people > here have voiced concern, Thorkil?
I do not use cabal for building (for now) or installing darcs (I use debian packages). For me it is just convenient to build with -Werror by default. And release tarballs should not have -Werror (this was discussed before IIRC). So having two build targets or configurations like release/development sounds reasonable. But this is not such a big issue, I am fine if -Werror is removed by default and there is a make (or cabal) option to enable it. I am just afraid that we get important warnings missed and applied. But perhaps this is not likely to happen very often. Regards, Dmitry > > Yours, > Petr. > > -- > Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com > http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net > > "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be > indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." > -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation > _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
