cabal setup scripts (was: Re: building haddock?)
wnoise at ofb.net
Thu Feb 2 01:25:36 EST 2006
On 2006-02-02, John Meacham <john at repetae.net> wrote:
> it is forcing them to. which is bad. no matter how beautiful haskell is.
> Quadruply especially so since it does not gain you anything. since it is
> not needed.
> I don't see cabal files becoming anywhere near turing complete. then it
> wouldn't be declarative (at least in the sense I mean). at most, string
> interpolation will be the only operation on its fields.
> I am actually trying to simplify cabal a lot with these changes. a
> program is hugely simpler than a library. Just from a maintenence point
> of view, must of the issues dealing with syncing cabal and ghc releases,
> cabal library version changes, etc would just have never been issues.
> what about multiple compilers and keeping your cabal installs in sync
> among all of them? it is just a big mess.
> not to mention how much simpler cabal development will be once it is
> decoupled from the compiler libraries and can evolve independently.
I don't have much too add beyond "this is exactly how I think of the
issue, and why the whole point of cabal has seemed wrong up to now."
Thank you for articulating this.
More information about the Libraries