cvs commit: fptools/libraries/Cabal/Distribution/Simple Build.hs

[Simon Marlow]

On 08 January 2005 22:06, Isaac Jones wrote:

> "Simon Marlow" <simonmar at microsoft.com> writes:
> 
>> No objections, but I think a better way would be to build the package
>> first, install it into a local package.conf and then build the
>> executables against the package.
> 
> This is a little tricky for a few reasons... the library might depend
> on post-install scripts to work, or may not work in-place at all; it
> may require that it's installed at the configured location.

Indeed - and these objections apply equally well to building executables
directly against the library code in the package.  When building the
executables we'll need to link in the extra-libraries, and add the
extra-cc-opts and extra-ld-opts from the library too.

What I'm really getting at here (and with some of the other problems I
raised recently) is that allowing 1 library + multiple executables in a
single package is not the right design, IMO.  Especially if the
executables depend on the library.  This goes back to a previous
discussion:

  http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2004-November/002691.html

How about allowing one library *or* multiple executables in a package?
That would avoid these problems for now, and we can do the Right Thing
later.

Cheers,
	Simon