[darcs-users] enfranchising darcs?

David Roundy droundy at darcs.net
Fri Oct 17 20:47:12 UTC 2008

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:29:46PM +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, David Roundy wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh at earth.li> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, David Roundy wrote:
>>>> Cabalization of darcs is like debianization of darcs or rpmization of
>>>> darcs.  It's  a good idea, but should be independent of darcs' build
>>>> system.
>>> Could franchise's script be renamed from setup.hs to something else, to
>>> avoid colliding with the name used by cabal?
>> We could certainly rename the script, but since it strives to match
>> the interface specified by cabal.
> What's the benefit in matching the command-line interface? Unless it will 
> integrate properly with cabal-install etc it seems more likely to cause  
> confusion than anything else.

It's what the cabal docs say to do.  Maybe that's a bug in the cabal

>> Perhaps I should rename it to Setup.hs instead? Honestly, I only made 
>> it lowercase because I don't like typing capital letters... (harder on 
>> the wrists).  Naming the franchise script Setup.hs ought to make  
>> cabalization almost trivial, for one definition of cabalization...
> I don't think that would fit in with the way cabal does things. Unless we 
> can figure out how to make the two fit together properly and still get 
> the benefits of cabal (most importantly, the explicit dependency 
> declaration), it would seem better to keep them apart.

Well, perhaps you should bring that up with the cabal folks.  If you
create a cabal file, cabal install will obey that cabal file, that's
what cabal install does, and is why franchise can be installed with
cabal install.  Admittedly franchise has a pretty cruddy cabal file,
but that's because it's automatically generated and I haven't had the
motivation to do any better.


More information about the darcs-users mailing list