On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Rogan Creswick <cresw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Tuegel <ttue...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > At this point, the package author need only run: > > > > $ ./Setup configure > > $ ./Setup build > > $ ./Setup test > > My general feeling has been that Setup is being discouraged in favor > of using 'cabal <foo>', but I don't have any solid evidence for that > (and I could very well be wrong!). They do do slightly different > things, so I think it's wise to figure out which idiom is most likely > to be used and work with that. > I haven't figured out how it's possible, but I'm convinced that ./Setup configure vs. cabal configure can lead to a different set of dependencies being selected. This can lead to diamond dependency problems. (I'm convinced this happen on at least one machine I know of.) What I don't understand is how it's possible for the discrepancy to happen. It's as if ./Setup and cabal-install use different algorithms for dependency resolution, but as I understand it, both should be using the Cabal library for that. My only other thought is that perhaps ./Setup uses a different version of the Cabal library than what cabal-install uses. Perhaps Duncan can comment on this. Jason
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
