On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:32:05AM +0000, Eric Kow wrote:
>
> This exposes every darcs module as part of a new library (again,
> one whose API is explicitly volatile and unsafe).
Woo!
> Disadvantages
> - darcs executable has to adhere to package version policy
> (which may not be so bad)
I don't follow that; nothing is /required/ to follow the policy, but if
anything should then it's the library.
> An alternative is to rename our darcs.cabal to libdarcs.cabal and create a
> minimal release/darcs.cabal which depends on libdarcs.
I had the same dilemma with camp - whether to split the executable off
or to fix Cabal. Then I realised that actually
camp-core (Camp.Patch.*)
camp-repository (Camp.Repository.*)
camp-bin (Camp.Command.*, executable only)
made a lot of sense anyway, so I just went with that. Even if you don't
want to do a sensible split now, doing a non-sensible split seems like a
reasonable stepping stone if that's where you're headed.
Thanks
Ian
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
