<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Rogan Creswick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:creswick@gmail.com">creswick@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Tuegel <<a href="mailto:ttuegel@gmail.com">ttuegel@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br></div><div class="im">
> At this point, the package author need only run:<br>
><br>
> $ ./Setup configure<br>
> $ ./Setup build<br>
> $ ./Setup test<br>
<br>
</div>My general feeling has been that Setup is being discouraged in favor<br>
of using 'cabal <foo>', but I don't have any solid evidence for that<br>
(and I could very well be wrong!). They do do slightly different<br>
things, so I think it's wise to figure out which idiom is most likely<br>
to be used and work with that.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I haven't figured out how it's possible, but I'm convinced that ./Setup configure vs. cabal configure can lead to a different set of dependencies being selected. This can lead to diamond dependency problems. (I'm convinced this happen on at least one machine I know of.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>What I don't understand is how it's possible for the discrepancy to happen. It's as if ./Setup and cabal-install use different algorithms for dependency resolution, but as I understand it, both should be using the Cabal library for that. My only other thought is that perhaps ./Setup uses a different version of the Cabal library than what cabal-install uses.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Perhaps Duncan can comment on this.</div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div></div>