On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 14:42 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 03:18:43PM +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:
(1) was easier at the time. (2) should be relatively easy to implement now, but since the current implementation works, I didn't bother so far. I know that (1) is a rather hackish solution, but why is it "just wrong"? (After all, it works.)
It makes a package that doesn't contain a library look like it does have one (though unbuildable). I think there's an important difference between the two cases; it certainly matters to clients.
Note that it does not rewrite the _external_ package description. Cabal now internally uses the section-based syntax, so we have to rewrite old flat package descriptions to the section-based format _internally_. I.e., the actual text-file is never overridden, so no end-user will ever see this.