haddock 2 and GHC
duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Tue Aug 19 15:38:13 EDT 2008
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 15:05 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> >>> However, haddock would still have to support ghc-paths for standalone
> >>> builds. Also, I think that in a GHC tree we'd still have to pointlessly
> >>> link against ghc-paths, as I can't see a simple way to avoid it.
> >> Can't this be a conditional dependency?
> > If you have
> > Flag ghcPaths
> > if flag(ghcPaths)
> > Build-Depends: ghc-paths
> > then there's no reason for that flag ever to be turned on. I'm not sure
> > what cabal-install does, but if you try and build it manually with Cabal
> > and don't have ghc-paths installed then Cabal will happily build it for
> > you without ghc-paths.
> Hmm. We want a flag that isn't subject to Cabal's automatic resolution.
> Duncan, is there any way to do what we want here?
If you have flags that default to False then you're probably ok right?
Automatic resolution will only turn them on if it's impossible to
configure with them off.
You can always override flags of course by specifying them explicitly at
configure time. Automatic resolution is only used when the flag is
otherwise unspecified, and even then you get to choose if it should try
it first with the flag on or off.
More information about the Cvs-ghc