build-depends in old-style package descriptions
nominolo at googlemail.com
Sun Sep 9 11:37:32 EDT 2007
On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 14:42 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 03:18:43PM +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> > (1) was easier at the time. (2) should be relatively easy to implement
> > now, but since the current implementation works, I didn't bother so far.
> > I know that (1) is a rather hackish solution, but why is it "just
> > wrong"? (After all, it works.)
> It makes a package that doesn't contain a library look like it does
> have one (though unbuildable). I think there's an important difference
> between the two cases; it certainly matters to clients.
Note that it does not rewrite the _external_ package description. Cabal
now internally uses the section-based syntax, so we have to rewrite old
flat package descriptions to the section-based format _internally_.
I.e., the actual text-file is never overridden, so no end-user will ever
More information about the cabal-devel