brianlsmith at gmail.com
Wed Oct 25 23:19:24 EDT 2006
On 10/24/06, Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi All,
> Before the 6.6 release we had a longish discussion on how to do
> configurations and their semantics and implementation complexity etc.
> I would like to re-propose the last scheme that I cam up with. I'll try
> to make it a concrete proposal as well as giving some motivating
> examples to give the intuition of the meaning.
Duncan, I have thought about this more and I have the following questions:
* How does the proposed configuration mechanism work with executables? Can
executables be built conditionally? Does the chosen configuration apply to
library and all executables in the package description?
* What happens when multiple configurations apply?:
I think that if more than one condition applies, then configuration should
fail with an error.
* Are True and False really useful in cexp's? If a configuration is always
selected (True) then the whole mechanism is not even needed, and if it is
always False then it is never used. I think any combination of and's, or's,
and not's with constants can be rewritten without the constants.
* You mentioned the case where a using(x) expression conflicts with a
Configuration: using(foo = 1.0)
Build-depends: foo = 2.0
It seems to me that:
using(foo = x) == !(available foo > x),
using(foo > x) == (available foo > x),
using(foo < x) == !(available foo >= x),
because of Cabal's "use the latest available version" policy. If all usages
of using(x) can be replaced with available(f(x)), then I think it would be
better to just get rid of using(x) and allow available(x) in both fexp's and
cexp's, for consistency. However, I know that you do not want to do that,
because you don't want available(x) allowed in cexp's. As you noted
previously in the thread, using(x) seems to cause a lot of complications--is
it really necessary? I think your example of using(x) is easily rewritten to
not require it:
default: !available(base >= 2)
build-depends: fps >= 0.8
* Why not use [ os="linux" ] instead of [ os(linux) ]? Since we already have
(=) for comparing package versions, it seems to be sensible to overload (=)
to compare these flags as well.
* Your example used [ os(windows) ]. However, the value for
System.Info.osis usually "mingw32" or "cygwin" (or similar) on
Windows. I think that the
os() and arch() values should be consistent with System.Info whenever
* Finally, I suggest that we create some package descriptions for
complicated packages, to use as "use case" scenerios. In particular, I think
that at least GHC, lhs2tex, wxHaskell, and network-alt would be cases to
study. By having such use cases, you will have a clearer idea of exactly
what is needed in practical usage. You can also use these cases to delineate
the scope of Cabal's configuration mechanism. I have a Cabal files for GHC
(stage2 only) that you can use if you think this is a good idea (actually, I
can probably write the Cabal file for both stages of the GHC build, sans
usages of features that Cabal doesn't have).
Please let me know if this feedback is helpful. I am thinking to embed Cabal
in two different tools, which is why I am so interested in these little
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cabal-devel