Test Cases for Configurations
nominolo at googlemail.com
Thu Jun 14 17:21:19 EDT 2007
On 14 jun 2007, at 19.27, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:18 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> Thomas Schilling wrote:
>>> it's still a little work to do, but I think I'll be able to try
>>> and use
>>> Cabal configurations some time next week. Do you guys have any
>>> what we could use as a good test case?
>>> The goal is to find out how well the current scheme applies to
>>> use cases (and if there are serious performance problems to await).
>> Some suggestions:
>> - the base package has a lot of goop in its Setup script, I
>> really hope
>> that all, or at least most, of it can be done using
>> - we have a few packages that want to do conditional
>> dependencies. e.g.
>> HGL wants to depend on either Win32 or X11.
>> - IIRC, gtk2hs has a complex structure that will need a lot of
>> stuff in its .cabal file. Duncan will tell you more.
> Unfortunately there's still a lot of work before Gtk2Hs is ready to be
> cabalised. Cabal configurations is a major piece of the puzzle though.
> But sadly there are too many other bits before Gtk2Hs would be a
> suitable test case for configurations.
> A cut down model of Gtk2Hs might work though, ie a bunch of .cabal
> modelling the various bits of Gtk2Hs, just without any of the actual
> source code.
>> - take a look at the old discussion on libraries at haskell.org;
>> there were
>> lots of use cases discussed there.
> Many related to fps/bytestring being included in the base package or
Is there some centralized documentation of these changes? Or should
I just browse through the mailing lists? E.g., it looks like GHC
doesn't have a .cabal file yet, so I'd have to manually translate to
the Makefile, which I presume would be a major undertaking. Same
applies for gtk2hs, whose ugliness I had to experience earlier.
More information about the cabal-devel