Configurations proposal

Duncan Coutts duncan.coutts at
Wed Oct 25 07:30:40 EDT 2006

On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 21:45 -0500, Brian Smith wrote:
> (sorry, I responded to the wrong list)
> On 10/24/06, Duncan Coutts
> <duncan.coutts at> wrote:
>         On the other hand, in Gtk2Hs I know one case where we do this.
>         We have a
>         Graphics.UI.Gtk.Cairo api module that is only included if Gtk
>         was built
>         against Cairo. In any case it could be faked by using cpp to
>         just not 
>         export anything rather than not having the module exposed at
>         all. So
>         it's not clear that it's worth banning. Or maybe making it
>         slightly
>         harder is worth it so that people don't get in the habit.
> Couldn't you split this into Gtk and Gtk-Cairo packages, where the
> latter is only built if Cairo is available?

Yes I could and that's probably the right thing to do.

> Similarly, in your GUI example, couldn't you have seperate foo and
> foo-gui packages, and only build the foo-gui package if the GUI
> libraries are available? 

I'm not so sure about that one.

> Otherwise, how can you say "I depend on the Gtk package being built
> with Cairo support" and "I depend on the GUI portion of the foo
> package?"



More information about the cabal-devel mailing list