On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 15:06 -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:
Ross, how do you see the fields panning out? Want to implement it? :)
Something like
Build-Type: (Simple|Configure|Make|Custom)
I'd be happy to implement it, if/when we get agreement.
Cool. What do others think of all this?
It's not clear to me that we need to have an extra field. I had originally envisaged that cabal-setup would just find the right compiler to build Setup.(l)hs and if there was none that it'd use defaultMain (possibly without needing to compile any setup binary). So do we really need a 'build-type:' field? Arn't there just two values for it, 'Simple' and 'Custom' (since all others are just different implementations of 'Custom')? Can't the Simple/Custom distinction be simply if the Setup.(l)hs is present or not? As people have said, backwards compat is easy, just include a Setup.(l)hs that calls defaultMain. If you ommit it, then new cabal-setup can build it anyway. Duncan