cabal, Setup.lhs example

older
src/Text/XML/HaXml/Lex.hs:(156,...

Tom Hawkins

19 Jul 2010 19 Jul '10

11:44 a.m.

I have a script I'm using to generate some Haskell code for a library. How do I specify this flow in the cabal setup file? Would someone point me to a relevant library I can reference as an example? -Tom

Show replies by date

Stephen Tetley

19 Jul 19 Jul

12:54 p.m.

Hi Tom This will the job for a UserHooks - probably preBuild? - see Distribution.Simple.UserHooks. postConf - Hook to run after configure command preBuild - Hook to run before build command. Second arg indicates verbosity level. buildHook - Over-ride this hook to get different behaviour during build. lhs2Tex uses user hooks extensively. If that's too complicated, my own library Wumpus-Core uses a preSDist hook in Setup.hs to make sure I've bumped the version number before I ship the library. Best wishes Stephen

Tom Hawkins

20 Jul 20 Jul

11:50 p.m.

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Stephen Tetley wrote:

...

Hi Tom

This will the job for a UserHooks - probably preBuild? - see Distribution.Simple.UserHooks.

postConf - Hook to run after configure command preBuild - Hook to run before build command. Second arg indicates verbosity level. buildHook - Over-ride this hook to get different behaviour during build.

Thanks. I tried this, but it appears cabal-install ignores the Setup.hs file. The only way I could get it to take is if I run 'runhaskell Setup.hs configure' directly. I always assumed cabal-install runs Setup.hs under the hood, but apparently not. Why is this?

Rogan Creswick

11:53 p.m.

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Tom Hawkins wrote:

...

Thanks. I tried this, but it appears cabal-install ignores the Setup.hs file. The only way I could get it to take is if I run 'runhaskell Setup.hs configure' directly. I always assumed cabal-install runs Setup.hs under the hood, but apparently not. Why is this?

I believe you must set Build-type: Custom in your cabal file to use user hooks in Setup.hs. I don't fully understand the implications of using Custom, though. --Rogan

...

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Magnus Therning

21 Jul 21 Jul

6 a.m.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 04:53, Rogan Creswick wrote:

...

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Tom Hawkins wrote:

...
Thanks. I tried this, but it appears cabal-install ignores the Setup.hs file. The only way I could get it to take is if I run 'runhaskell Setup.hs configure' directly. I always assumed cabal-install runs Setup.hs under the hood, but apparently not. Why is this?

I believe you must set

Build-type: Custom

in your cabal file to use user hooks in Setup.hs. I don't fully understand the implications of using Custom, though.

I am successfully using hooks with the following in my .cabal file: Build-Type : Simple and my main in Setup.hs looks like this: main = defaultMainWithHooks $ simpleUserHooks { cleanHook = profileClean , runTests = runTestsBuild } /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

Rogan Creswick

12:43 p.m.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

I am successfully using hooks with the following in my .cabal file:

Build-Type : Simple

and my main in Setup.hs looks like this:

main = defaultMainWithHooks $ simpleUserHooks { cleanHook = profileClean , runTests = runTestsBuild }

I've been unable to reproduce this -- flipping the build type to Custom has been necessary in every configuration I've tried. I'd like to see what I'm doing differently -- is this used in a publicly available package I could take a look at? Thanks! Rogan

Magnus Therning

22 Jul 22 Jul

4:42 a.m.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 17:43, Rogan Creswick wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...
I am successfully using hooks with the following in my .cabal file:

Build-Type : Simple

and my main in Setup.hs looks like this:

main = defaultMainWithHooks $ simpleUserHooks { cleanHook = profileClean , runTests = runTestsBuild }

I've been unable to reproduce this -- flipping the build type to Custom has been necessary in every configuration I've tried. I'd like to see what I'm doing differently -- is this used in a publicly available package I could take a look at?

It's not ready to be made public yet, but I put together the following example: % cat test.cabal Name : test Version : 0.0.0 License : GPL Author : Magnus Therning Maintainer : magnus@therning.org Copyright : Magnus Therning, 2009 Build-Type : Simple Cabal-Version : >= 1.2 Executable test Main-Is : Main.hs Build-Depends : base >= 4.2.0 && < 4.3 % cat Setup.hs #! /usr/bin/env runhaskell import Distribution.Simple main = defaultMainWithHooks $ simpleUserHooks { cleanHook = profileClean } profileClean pd v uh cf = do (cleanHook simpleUserHooks) pd v uh cf putStrLn "** in hook" % ./Setup.hs configure Configuring test-0.0.0... % ./Setup.hs clean cleaning... ** in hook Could it be a difference in versions? % ghc --version The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 6.12.1 % ghc-pkg list | grep Cabal Cabal-1.8.0.2 /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

Ross Paterson

5:59 a.m.

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:43:16AM -0700, Rogan Creswick wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...
I am successfully using hooks with the following in my .cabal file:

Build-Type : Simple

I've been unable to reproduce this -- flipping the build type to Custom has been necessary in every configuration I've tried. I'd like to see what I'm doing differently -- is this used in a publicly available package I could take a look at?

Magnus is building by directly running the Setup.hs himself, which ignores the Build-Type. To get cabal-install to use his Setup.hs, the Build-Type must be set to Custom.

Magnus Therning

6:31 a.m.

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:59, Ross Paterson wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:43:16AM -0700, Rogan Creswick wrote:

...
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...
I am successfully using hooks with the following in my .cabal file:

Build-Type : Simple

I've been unable to reproduce this -- flipping the build type to Custom has been necessary in every configuration I've tried. I'd like to see what I'm doing differently -- is this used in a publicly available package I could take a look at?

Magnus is building by directly running the Setup.hs himself, which ignores the Build-Type. To get cabal-install to use his Setup.hs, the Build-Type must be set to Custom.

Oh, why*2? Why is the header there if it's not used by Cabal, and why does cabal care? Cheers, M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

Ross Paterson

6:52 a.m.

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:31:21AM +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:59, Ross Paterson wrote:

...
Magnus is building by directly running the Setup.hs himself, which ignores the Build-Type. To get cabal-install to use his Setup.hs, the Build-Type must be set to Custom.

Oh, why*2?

Why is the header there if it's not used by Cabal, and why does cabal care?

The field allows cabal to avoid compiling the Setup.hs in this case. It might also be used by other tools, e.g. one might only trust Simple packages. Not all fields are used by all tools, and several of them do not affect the operation of the library (e.g. Home-page).

Magnus Therning

9:44 a.m.

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:52, Ross Paterson wrote:

...

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:31:21AM +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:59, Ross Paterson wrote:

...
Magnus is building by directly running the Setup.hs himself, which ignores the Build-Type. To get cabal-install to use his Setup.hs, the Build-Type must be set to Custom.

Oh, why*2?

Why is the header there if it's not used by Cabal, and why does cabal care?

The field allows cabal to avoid compiling the Setup.hs in this case. It might also be used by other tools, e.g. one might only trust Simple packages. Not all fields are used by all tools, and several of them do not affect the operation of the library (e.g. Home-page).

All right, so why would cabal want to avoid compiling the Setup.hs? Of course this behaviour of cabal's means that I in the future will use *Custom* all the time, since I otherwise have to remember this surprising feature of a tool I never use. Is there any reason *not* to do this? Cheers, M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

wren ng thornton

10:33 p.m.

Magnus Therning wrote:

...

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:52, Ross Paterson wrote:

...
...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:59, Ross Paterson wrote:

...
Magnus is building by directly running the Setup.hs himself, which ignores the Build-Type. To get cabal-install to use his Setup.hs, the Build-Type must be set to Custom. Oh, why*2?

Why is the header there if it's not used by Cabal, and why does cabal care? The field allows cabal to avoid compiling the Setup.hs in this case. It might also be used by other tools, e.g. one might only trust Simple

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:31:21AM +0100, Magnus Therning wrote: packages. Not all fields are used by all tools, and several of them do not affect the operation of the library (e.g. Home-page).

All right, so why would cabal want to avoid compiling the Setup.hs?

Of course this behaviour of cabal's means that I in the future will use *Custom* all the time, since I otherwise have to remember this surprising feature of a tool I never use. Is there any reason *not* to do this?

The main reason I could think of to avoid compiling it is for performance reasons. I'm not sure how compelling that is, but... As for why not to always use Custom, as mentioned there are cabal-aware tools out there besides cabal-install. For these other tools, there is a big difference between Simple and Custom. With Simple we (ideally) already know all the semantics of what Setup.hs does, and so we can wire that into our tools. With Custom we're forced into the position of doing Haskell source analysis since we now have to discover the semantics of an arbitrary Turing machine. That's a very high wall to climb if you're just wanting to write a simple tool for doing some kind of package analysis. (I don't think the behavior is surprising since I interpret Simple to mean that the Setup.hs file is unused/optional. Though clearly YMMV) -- Live well, ~wren

Mark Wotton

11:58 p.m.

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:33 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:

...

Magnus Therning wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:52, Ross Paterson wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:31:21AM +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:59, Ross Paterson wrote:

...
Magnus is building by directly running the Setup.hs himself, which ignores the Build-Type. To get cabal-install to use his Setup.hs, the Build-Type must be set to Custom.

Oh, why*2?

Why is the header there if it's not used by Cabal, and why does cabal care?

The field allows cabal to avoid compiling the Setup.hs in this case. It might also be used by other tools, e.g. one might only trust Simple packages. Not all fields are used by all tools, and several of them do not affect the operation of the library (e.g. Home-page).

All right, so why would cabal want to avoid compiling the Setup.hs?

Of course this behaviour of cabal's means that I in the future will use *Custom* all the time, since I otherwise have to remember this surprising feature of a tool I never use. Is there any reason *not* to do this?

The main reason I could think of to avoid compiling it is for performance reasons. I'm not sure how compelling that is, but...

As for why not to always use Custom, as mentioned there are cabal-aware tools out there besides cabal-install. For these other tools, there is a big difference between Simple and Custom. With Simple we (ideally) already know all the semantics of what Setup.hs does, and so we can wire that into our tools. With Custom we're forced into the position of doing Haskell source analysis since we now have to discover the semantics of an arbitrary Turing machine. That's a very high wall to climb if you're just wanting to write a simple tool for doing some kind of package analysis.

(I don't think the behavior is surprising since I interpret Simple to mean that the Setup.hs file is unused/optional. Though clearly YMMV)

Ah, this clears up one of my bugs. Perhaps cabal should print a warning if you have a Setup.hs file, _and_ try to use Simple? It'd at least give the hint that they're unhappy together. mark -- A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent of a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like Heinlein or Dr. Who. -- Chris Maeda

Magnus Therning

23 Jul 23 Jul

4:18 a.m.

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 04:58, Mark Wotton wrote:

...

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:33 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:

...
Magnus Therning wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:52, Ross Paterson wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:31:21AM +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:59, Ross Paterson wrote:

...
Magnus is building by directly running the Setup.hs himself, which ignores the Build-Type. To get cabal-install to use his Setup.hs, the Build-Type must be set to Custom.

Oh, why*2?

Why is the header there if it's not used by Cabal, and why does cabal care?

The field allows cabal to avoid compiling the Setup.hs in this case. It might also be used by other tools, e.g. one might only trust Simple packages. Not all fields are used by all tools, and several of them do not affect the operation of the library (e.g. Home-page).

All right, so why would cabal want to avoid compiling the Setup.hs?

Of course this behaviour of cabal's means that I in the future will use *Custom* all the time, since I otherwise have to remember this surprising feature of a tool I never use. Is there any reason *not* to do this?

The main reason I could think of to avoid compiling it is for performance reasons. I'm not sure how compelling that is, but...

As for why not to always use Custom, as mentioned there are cabal-aware tools out there besides cabal-install. For these other tools, there is a big difference between Simple and Custom. With Simple we (ideally) already know all the semantics of what Setup.hs does, and so we can wire that into our tools. With Custom we're forced into the position of doing Haskell source analysis since we now have to discover the semantics of an arbitrary Turing machine. That's a very high wall to climb if you're just wanting to write a simple tool for doing some kind of package analysis.

(I don't think the behavior is surprising since I interpret Simple to mean that the Setup.hs file is unused/optional. Though clearly YMMV)

Ah, this clears up one of my bugs.

Perhaps cabal should print a warning if you have a Setup.hs file, _and_ try to use Simple? It'd at least give the hint that they're unhappy together.

I don't like that idea. I don't use cabal, so I always need a Setup.hs whether the Build-Type is Simple or Custom. This suggestion would also force some tools that don't care about Build-Type (they just use the Setup.hs irrespective of Build-Type) to start caring. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

Sittampalam, Ganesh

6:59 a.m.

Mark Wotton wrote:

...

Perhaps cabal should print a warning if you have a Setup.hs file, _and_ try to use Simple? It'd at least give the hint that they're unhappy together.

I think it should instead verify that Setup.hs is consistent with a Simple build. I don't know how much variation exists, but I believe "import Distribution.Simple\nmain = defaultMain\n" is all such a Setup.hs file actually needs. Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ===============================================================================

Edward Kmett

8:07 a.m.

That actually runs contrary to one of cabal's other practices, which is to add a 'simple' Setup.hs to your package as it makes the sdist is one is not present. With your proposed change, it would then complain about _every_ package that used simple. ;) Setup.hs exists so that you can execute runhaskell Setup.hs foo instead of cabal foo. You just need to tell cabal if you want to delegate to Setup.hs, by using something other than Simple as a build-type. The vast majority of the users of cabal never bother changing the behavior of Setup.hs. -Edward Kmett On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Mark Wotton wrote:

...

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:33 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:

...
Magnus Therning wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:52, Ross Paterson

wrote:

...
...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:31:21AM +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:59, Ross Paterson wrote:

...
Magnus is building by directly running the Setup.hs himself, which ignores the Build-Type. To get cabal-install to use his Setup.hs, the Build-Type must be set to Custom.

Oh, why*2?

Why is the header there if it's not used by Cabal, and why does cabal care?

The field allows cabal to avoid compiling the Setup.hs in this case. It might also be used by other tools, e.g. one might only trust Simple packages. Not all fields are used by all tools, and several of them do not affect the operation of the library (e.g. Home-page).

All right, so why would cabal want to avoid compiling the Setup.hs?

Of course this behaviour of cabal's means that I in the future will use *Custom* all the time, since I otherwise have to remember this surprising feature of a tool I never use. Is there any reason *not* to do this?

The main reason I could think of to avoid compiling it is for performance reasons. I'm not sure how compelling that is, but...

As for why not to always use Custom, as mentioned there are cabal-aware tools out there besides cabal-install. For these other tools, there is a big difference between Simple and Custom. With Simple we (ideally) already know all the semantics of what Setup.hs does, and so we can wire that into our tools. With Custom we're forced into the position of doing Haskell source analysis since we now have to discover the semantics of an arbitrary Turing machine. That's a very high wall to climb if you're just wanting to write a simple tool for doing some kind of package analysis.

(I don't think the behavior is surprising since I interpret Simple to mean that the Setup.hs file is unused/optional. Though clearly YMMV)

Ah, this clears up one of my bugs.

Perhaps cabal should print a warning if you have a Setup.hs file, _and_ try to use Simple? It'd at least give the hint that they're unhappy together.

mark

-- A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent of a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like Heinlein or Dr. Who. -- Chris Maeda _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Edward Kmett

8:08 a.m.

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Edward Kmett wrote:

...

That actually runs contrary to one of cabal's other practices, which is to add a 'simple' Setup.hs to your package as it makes the sdist is one is not present.

er.. I meant "if one is not present."

Magnus Therning

4:11 a.m.

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 03:33, wren ng thornton wrote:

...

Magnus Therning wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:52, Ross Paterson wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:31:21AM +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:

...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:59, Ross Paterson wrote:

...
Magnus is building by directly running the Setup.hs himself, which ignores the Build-Type. To get cabal-install to use his Setup.hs, the Build-Type must be set to Custom.

Oh, why*2?

Why is the header there if it's not used by Cabal, and why does cabal care?

The field allows cabal to avoid compiling the Setup.hs in this case. It might also be used by other tools, e.g. one might only trust Simple packages. Not all fields are used by all tools, and several of them do not affect the operation of the library (e.g. Home-page).

All right, so why would cabal want to avoid compiling the Setup.hs?

Of course this behaviour of cabal's means that I in the future will use *Custom* all the time, since I otherwise have to remember this surprising feature of a tool I never use. Is there any reason *not* to do this?

The main reason I could think of to avoid compiling it is for performance reasons. I'm not sure how compelling that is, but...

As for why not to always use Custom, as mentioned there are cabal-aware tools out there besides cabal-install. For these other tools, there is a big difference between Simple and Custom. With Simple we (ideally) already know all the semantics of what Setup.hs does, and so we can wire that into our tools. With Custom we're forced into the position of doing Haskell source analysis since we now have to discover the semantics of an arbitrary Turing machine. That's a very high wall to climb if you're just wanting to write a simple tool for doing some kind of package analysis.

(I don't think the behavior is surprising since I interpret Simple to mean that the Setup.hs file is unused/optional. Though clearly YMMV)

I always thought "Build-Type: Simple" was in some way connected to the module Distribution.Simple. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

Brandon S Allbery KF8NH

2:09 a.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/22/10 09:44 , Magnus Therning wrote:

...

All right, so why would cabal want to avoid compiling the Setup.hs?

Of course this behaviour of cabal's means that I in the future will use *Custom* all the time, since I otherwise have to remember this surprising feature of a tool I never use. Is there any reason *not* to do this?

I would think using Simple would simplify tools that automatically create rpms/debs/etc. from hackages. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxJMgoACgkQIn7hlCsL25XVSACfWBPmzJXA0fJtjOdFp0+pFU/W QKMAn08yzo73+Cl8C24qAYxTfsSGfo2p =6mxH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5418

Age (days ago)

5422

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

18 comments

10 participants

participants (10)

Brandon S Allbery KF8NH
Edward Kmett
Magnus Therning
Mark Wotton
Rogan Creswick
Ross Paterson
Sittampalam, Ganesh
Stephen Tetley
Tom Hawkins
wren ng thornton