This requested feature seems to overlap with the build-tools section,
however I don't think cabal will attempt to auto-install executables listed
there.
I think build-depends and build-tools should be kept separate, but maybe if
an executable listed in build-tools isn't found, cabal could look for a
package with the same name on hackage and attempt to install that first?
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 6:20 AM, harry
Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote
Are you proposing that each package listed in 'build-depends' should be looked up for its executables (if it contains any), and check if those are available as installed executable?
Yes, although it might be worth having this as a separate (build-depends-executable?) section.
What should happen if the executable is not found? cabal will try to install it, the same as if a libarary was not found in the package database.
If it's in cabal's bin but not the path, the user should be warned. Why only warned? Shouldn't the dependency check rather fail then, as the executable most likely won't be found? Yes, the installation should probably fail with a warning explaining what the problem is.
What if the executable found via $PATH differs from the one in ~/.cabal/bin (or the respective sandbox `bin` folder?); should then be warned as well? Not suggesting that cabal check versions, just whether an executable by the specified name is on the path. Looking in .cabal/bin if it isn't there is just to help diagnose a misconfigured path variable.
-- View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/cabal-install-and-executable-dependenci... Sent from the Haskell - Libraries mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries