"Simon Marlow"
On 31 January 2006 21:38, Isaac Jones wrote: (snip)
Ahem. Cabal-install.
It doesn't read that field yet, though.
Do you intend cabal-install to be the main interface to Cabal? That's what Duncan was proposing (and others have suggested) - that we deprecate the use of 'runhaskell Setup.lhs' as the interface to Cabal in favour of a program to do the same.
I don't know if cabal-install should be the main interface or not; I think it's worth experimenting with. As far as I know, I'm the only one who's tried it :)
Certainly there doesn't seem much point in having *both* cabal-install and another wrapper, so clearly they should be the same thing. I do think this is the way to go, though.
You think we should move away from saying that "setup" is the interface? Would we start distributing cabal-install w/ the compilers, or expect users to install it on their own? The problems with the setup script are mainly: 1) the interface changes (though that is hopefully a short-term problem) 2) we can't count on runhaskell being installed A better solution might be to work hard on stabalizing the interface. I would like to try to stabalize cabal and move future development into layered tools. peace, isaac