On 04 January 2005 19:11, Isaac Jones wrote:
And I meant <package> rather than "package" :-)
As Ross pointed out, one problem with that is finding the file itself. It also sorta violates the "don't repeat yourself" principal of keeping data in sync.
Most of these objections are addressed by simply saying that the basename of <package>.hsproj is irrelevant. It doesn't have to be the same as the package name, but by convention it makes sense for it to do so when possible. For the purposes of Cabal, it can be ignored. Why not just say that the package description is contained in a single file with a .hspkg or .hsproj suffix in the same directory as Setup.lhs? That covers all the cases we need right now, and it's a simple rule to describe. Cheers, Simon
"Simon Marlow"
Why not just say that the package description is contained in a single file with a .hspkg or .hsproj suffix in the same directory as Setup.lhs? That covers all the cases we need right now, and it's a simple rule to describe.
Sounds fine to me! As long as you mean one or the other of .hspkg or .hsproj, and we'll get rid of Setup.description. Maybe the 0.3 release will allow Setup.description but give a warning that it's deprecated. Speaking of which, Ross, how close are you to having something for the Hugs build and install work which you wouldn't mind having in the 0.3 release? I'm itching to get some of the interface changes out there, though unless we get a lot of happiness and consensus on them soon, I'll keep the UserHooks out of it. peace, isaac
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 08:39:19AM -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:
Speaking of which, Ross, how close are you to having something for the Hugs build and install work which you wouldn't mind having in the 0.3 release?
I'm more or less finished, except for arguing about the names and contents of these files. There are a few glitches to sort out, but they can wait.
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:16:58PM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
Why not just say that the package description is contained in a single file with a .hspkg or .hsproj suffix in the same directory as Setup.lhs? That covers all the cases we need right now, and it's a simple rule to describe.
It's not a huge deal, but a file with a fixed name is a bit easier to find than one with a fixed extension. What are VS's constraints?
"Simon Marlow"
Why not just say that the package description is contained in a single file with a .hspkg or .hsproj suffix in the same directory as Setup.lhs? That covers all the cases we need right now, and it's a simple rule to describe.
How about if we make it .cabal or .hscabal or .cabalpkg or something? peace, isaac
participants (3)
-
Isaac Jones -
Ross Paterson -
Simon Marlow