[Haskell-cafe] GSoC: Improving Cabal's Test Support

Jason Dagit dagit at codersbase.com
Thu Apr 1 23:37:18 EDT 2010

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Rogan Creswick <creswick at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Tuegel <ttuegel at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > At this point, the package author need only run:
> >
> > $ ./Setup configure
> > $ ./Setup build
> > $ ./Setup test
> My general feeling has been that Setup is being discouraged in favor
> of using 'cabal <foo>', but I don't have any solid evidence for that
> (and I could very well be wrong!).  They do do slightly different
> things, so I think it's wise to figure out which idiom is most likely
> to be used and work with that.

I haven't figured out how it's possible, but I'm convinced that ./Setup
configure vs. cabal configure can lead to a different set of dependencies
being selected.  This can lead to diamond dependency problems.  (I'm
convinced this happen on at least one machine I know of.)

What I don't understand is how it's possible for the discrepancy to happen.
 It's as if ./Setup and cabal-install use different algorithms for
dependency resolution, but as I understand it, both should be using the
Cabal library for that.  My only other thought is that perhaps ./Setup uses
a different version of the Cabal library than what cabal-install uses.

Perhaps Duncan can comment on this.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20100401/529f2404/attachment.html

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list