[darcs-users] darcs patch: Import cabalisation: Setup.lhs, darcs.ca... (and 13 more)
daveroundy at gmail.com
Mon Oct 20 21:49:07 UTC 2008
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 15:14:25 -0400, David Roundy wrote:
>> I think this is an overstatement. I'd still rather keep packaging out of
>> the official darcs repository on the whole. I know that we do have a
>> darcs.spec.in file in release/, but the debian stuff has been removed, and
>> in release/ it's out of the way. Perhaps we could put the darcs.cabal in
>> the same place?
> Well, that would be a bit of an inconvenience to everybody that wants to
> use the Cabal file. I would prefer we just kept it in the repository
I imagine that people using cabal install won't be running from the
>> We don't have a gentoo ebuild in the official darcs repository, and I
>> don't see a strong reason why we should add one. Why is cabal any
> I understand that you see Cabal as just a packaging system among others,
> and I would like to propose a slight nuance to add to your view.
> Cabal files exist to make packaging darcs easier: cabal-install,
> MacPorts, Debian, RedHat, ArchLinux, Gentoo, Cygwin all could benefit
> from having a single reference point for our Haskell package dependency
> information. Providing an official Cabal file makes it easier for a
> diverse group of packagers to install darcs and indirectly makes it
> easier for people to install darcs, which is a very good thing for the
Yes, I've heard this before. I'm not convinced that it's true, beyond
arch linux. Maybe it is, though.
> In other words, the nuance consists is separating the discussion on the
> merits of Cabal from that of cabal-install. Hackage/cabal-install can
> be seen as a packaging system among others (Gentoo, etc), and I can
> understand your resistance to giving it any special treatement. Cabal
> itself on the other hand, should become part of darcs, because it allows
> us to help lots of different people package darcs for very little cost.
> As a separate issue, I personally think we should also make some effort
> to ensure that "cabal install darcs" works... and the reason for doing
> this is that it validates our cabal file and gives packagers confidence.
I suppose it depends on who the "we" is. I agree that whoever makes a
cabal file should make sure it works.
More information about the darcs-users