simonmarhaskell: > Claus Reinke wrote: > > >cabal: > > - the separation into interpreter/compiler and resource as Setup > > does not set up the right mindset in users. for instance, you can > > "runhaskell Setup.hs --help" as for most unixy tools, but who'd > > think of that in this situation, and how much does it help? > > > > + add a dedicated command "cabal", which does nothing more > > than "runhaskell Setup", but is more memorable and suggestive > > cabal-setup does this, but wasn't included with the latest release of > Cabal. It should be in the next one, I hope. The plan is to deprecate > 'runhaskell Setup.lhs' in favour of 'cabal-setup'. Feel free to suggest > changing the name to 'cabal', although some might argue that 'cabal-get' is > the high-level tool and should therefore get the name 'cabal' instead. > > > - cabal/darcs/haddock are no replacement for minimal help texts: > > cabal should require the existence of a README > > absolutely, this has occurred to me too. There should be a stanard Cabal > README file, and Don's mkcabal tool could drop it in the tree.
This occurred to me too. My current plan for mkcabal is that it creates: foo.cabal Setup.lhs README LICENSE based on a series of interactive questions, or command line args. -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe