xyne:
Hi,
Would it be possible to add an option to cabal2arch to prevent it from creating files outside of the directory which contains the PKGBUILD and install file (i.e. "link", "title", "desc", the source tarball and the cabal file)? Tangentially, is all of the necessary metainformation contained in the cabal file, or does cabal2arch require further information contained in the source tarball? I found it strange that it downloaded the latter. Presuming that the cabal file contains all the necessary information, I would really prefer it if cabal2arch could simply read the file remotely without saving it and then generate the directory with the PKGBUILD and install file, and nothing else.
Well, I really shouldn't have had those files be created -- they're a quick hack to log a bit of metainfo for other tools to process (to generate the upload logs).
I ask this because I'm considering adding cabal support to bauerbill, which is a full yaourt replacement with additional features such as integrated support for building repo packages froms source. I am hoping to use cabal2arch to do this but I do now want to deal with the clutter that it creates as all I require are the PKGBUILD and install file. I do not want to implement my own "cabal2arch" though because it seems silly to duplicate the effort and then have to monitor changes in cabal2arch for compatibility.
Could you just clean up the files?
Additionally, please consider changing the cabal2arch help message as it does not describe what cabal2arch actually does:
Good idea.
Finally, the dependencies array does not specify minimum versions as specified in the cabal file, e.g. "Cabal-Version >= 1.2" does not translate to "haskell-cabal>=1.2". I realize that this example is trivial as haskell-cabal is already at a later version, but should this not be remedied to prevent possible issues in the future?
I'm sorry that I haven't supplied any patches, but I'm still only just beginning to learn haskell and I doubt that any patches that I submit at this point would save more effort than their review would require.
In what sense would you support cabal in your tool? Just transparently calling cabal2arch? -- Don