Re: package mounting
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 10:03:32PM -0400, Samuel Bronson wrote:
On 10/25/06, Frederik Eaton <frederik@a5.repetae.net> wrote:
It looks nice, but don't you think the -package-base flag ought to take both the package name *and* the mountpoint?
My intention was that -package-base specifies a base for the package specified in the preceding -package flag, but I'll clarify it in the document. In other words, it is an optional argument and the syntax is ghc ... -package PACKAGE -package-base BASE ... (giving package PACKAGE mount point BASE)
Otherwise, this looks like what I've wanted all along, if only I knew it ;-).
Excellent, thanks. Frederik -- http://ofb.net/~frederik/
On 10/30/06, Frederik Eaton <frederik@a5.repetae.net> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 10:03:32PM -0400, Samuel Bronson wrote:
On 10/25/06, Frederik Eaton <frederik@a5.repetae.net> wrote:
It looks nice, but don't you think the -package-base flag ought to take both the package name *and* the mountpoint?
My intention was that -package-base specifies a base for the package specified in the preceding -package flag, but I'll clarify it in the document. In other words, it is an optional argument and the syntax is
ghc ... -package PACKAGE -package-base BASE ...
(giving package PACKAGE mount point BASE)
Otherwise, this looks like what I've wanted all along, if only I knew it ;-).
Excellent, thanks.
What about packages with multiple module trees like, say, Cabal? -- Cheers, Lemmih
What about packages with multiple module trees like, say, Cabal?
That's a good question, and I think the right answer is not to do anything special to support them. I assume that what you're referring to with Cabal is that there is no common prefix for all of the module names, but rather a small set of common prefixes (Distribution.*, Language.Haskell.Extension). Under my proposal, if we want to get rid of the 'Distribution' module prefix within the Cabal source code, then we'll have to either rename the Language.Haskell.Extension module, or move it to another package. Best, Frederik -- http://ofb.net/~frederik/
Frederik Eaton <frederik@a5.repetae.net> writes:
It looks nice, but don't you think the -package-base flag ought to take both the package name *and* the mountpoint?
My intention was that -package-base specifies a base for the package specified in the preceding -package flag [...] In other words, it is an optional argument and the syntax is
ghc ... -package PACKAGE -package-base BASE ...
How about something like ghc ... -package PACKAGE@BASE (where the @BASE part is optional)? -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
participants (3)
-
Frederik Eaton -
Ketil Malde -
Lemmih