[darcs-users] enfranchising darcs?
dagit at codersbase.com
Fri Oct 17 00:56:46 UTC 2008
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jason Dagit" <dagit at codersbase.com> writes:
> > If we're going to use franchise for darcs, why do we need to exclude
> > the use of autotools and cabal?
> Because maintaining build infrastructures is a pain, and thus
> maintaining more than one is both undesirable and (at least
> theoretically) unnecessary.
I have heard the above argument before and I don't find it compelling in
this context. Let me explain why.
This would be a good answer to the question, "Why should we minimize the
number of build systems?" But I feel like we're in a different context
(hence my big list of points in the previous email) and so I'm asking a
different question above. Briefly, we're in a situation where autotools
currently meets our needs on all but one platform and Cabal compliance is a
common request and fills the need on the platform that autotools misses.
So it seems that regardless of which build system we use, cabal support is
going to continue to be requested and the pain of redundant maintenance on
the build system(s) will still be taken on by someone. It seems as though
we would be smart to accept that work into the official repository so we can
ensure people are not duplicating the effort of said potential redundancy.
Even if it's only maintained by volunteers. As an example this would
parallel some of our build targets like api-docs. David doesn't build the
api-docs so he doesn't worry if that support breaks. But, those of us who
do use the haddocks submit patches when/if it breaks. I haven't heard any
complaints about this way of working.
I suspect someone will respond with "If you don't like it, please maintain a
branch with that feature." Which is actually the case now. People who want
cabal support are sharing patches in unofficial darcs repositories. I think
the community would be better off with a unified resolution.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the darcs-users