ijones at syntaxpolice.org
Fri Mar 3 19:45:03 EST 2006
Simon Marlow <simonmar at microsoft.com> writes:
> Following discussions a while back:
> there was some concensus (although not unanimous) that Cabal's user
> interface should be a wrapper program that runs Setup.hs. I've
> implemented a first cut at this, see the attached Cabal patch. It
> addresses this ticket:
The somewhat bigger vision is to as mentioned here:
is to add cabal-setup and cabal-get to the cabal tree. We'd like to
thin out cabal-get so that it's small enough to include w/ cabal.
Cabal-get will take over some of the functionality that cabal-install
was meant to do, and will be layered on top of cabal-setup.
Does everyone like the name cabal-setup?
So this looks good to me so far! I think duncan started work on
something very similar, so I've CC'd him and perhaps he can let us
know if he has anything to add.
> I'm sending it here rather than committing directly, because I imagine
> there will be some discussion about whether this is the right
> thing. I'm pretty convinced this is the right way to go: it solves the
> Cabal versioning problem, and it frees the programmer from having to
> write a boilerplate Setup.hs file. It's a step on the way to
> supporting building of multiple packages.
> Look at the patch, tell me what you think. You'll need a completely
> up-to-date Cabal from darcs to build it.
I looked at it a bit and it looks fine. I'm leaning toward keeping
all multi-package stuff in cabal-get (maybe it should be called
cabal-install or something, since it should also work on local files)
and keeping cabal-setup very thin, as you have it now.
More information about the Libraries