ijones at syntaxpolice.org
Wed Feb 1 12:45:27 EST 2006
"Simon Marlow" <simonmar at microsoft.com> writes:
> On 31 January 2006 21:38, Isaac Jones wrote:
>> 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.
More information about the Libraries