building haddock?

Isaac Jones ijones at
Wed Feb 1 12:45:27 EST 2006

"Simon Marlow" <simonmar at> writes:

> On 31 January 2006 21:38, Isaac Jones wrote:
>> Ahem. Cabal-install.
>> It doesn't read that field yet, though.
> Do you intend cabal-install to be the main interface to Cabal?  That's
> what Duncan was proposing (and others have suggested) - that we
> deprecate the use of 'runhaskell Setup.lhs' as the interface to Cabal in
> favour of a program to do the same.

I don't know if cabal-install should be the main interface or not; I
think it's worth experimenting with.  As far as I know, I'm the only
one who's tried it :)

> Certainly there doesn't seem much point in having *both* cabal-install
> and another wrapper, so clearly they should be the same thing.  I do
> think this is the way to go, though.

You think we should move away from saying that "setup" is the
interface?  Would we start distributing cabal-install w/ the
compilers, or expect users to install it on their own?

The problems with the setup script are mainly:
 1) the interface changes (though that is hopefully a short-term problem)
 2) we can't count on runhaskell being installed

A better solution might be to work hard on stabalizing the interface.
I would like to try to stabalize cabal and move future development
into layered tools.



More information about the Libraries mailing list