On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 01:22 +0000, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 01:06:10AM +0000, Neil Mitchell wrote:
"runhaskell", "ghc --make" and hugs would all work.
"ghc -package base -package Cabal" wouldn't, but I doubt that will trip anyone up given it won't be in any docs (and so anyone it does trip up probably knows how to fix it anyway).
Cabal users will have to explicitly depend on FilePath though, i.e.
No they won't: If Setup.hs builds then it's installed, and besides, we don't need it any more if we've already built Setup. So there's no point in Setup.hs checking it's installed (which is the effect of adding a dep in the .cabal file, which I assume is what you meant).
There was this idea that cabal-setup should compile Setup.hs using only a limited set of packages exposed. This is to stop unfortunate QA issues where a developer makes a Setup.hs module that builds on his machine but not on a users machine because they're missing some package. So yes, cabal-setup would only let you import things from base and whatever set of other core packages we can agree on. Duncan