I definitely think impl(ghc) should cover GHCJS, as it effectively just is a GHC backend (even if not part of GHC). Doing otherwise would be a bit like having impl(ghc) be false when compiling with -fllvm IMHO. The value of GHCJS is that it's supposed to be able to compile most existing packages as-is.
Just my two cents. :-)
I think we should definitely fix the packages, not put a hack in Cabal.In the latest hackage archive, there are 462 packages that use the impl(ghc) flag, including lots of very common packages. For example binary:if impl(ghc >= 7.2.1)cpp-options: -DGENERICSother-modules: Data.Binary.Genericif impl(ghc <= 7.6)-- prior to ghc-7.4 generics lived in ghc-primbuild-depends: ghc-primIs there a generic way to do this without impl ghc checks? Otherwise all these impl(ghc >= x) flag checks have to be changed to impl(ghc >= x) || impl(ghcjs >= y), not something I'd be looking forward to...Also I personally don't really see it as a hack (of course I'm biased since I've been using it for a while). It just allows you to specify that "compiler x is based on compiler y", so that unless explicitly queried otherwise you can assume that flags for 'y' hold for 'x'.luite
_______________________________________________
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel