From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42715) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jC2CN-0000ie-Dh for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:19:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jC2CM-0007b2-9F for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:19:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:49317) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jC2CM-0007ae-3S for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:19:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jC2CL-0008F4-Vb for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:19:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack. Resent-Message-ID: From: Timothy Sample References: <87mu9ahbz8.fsf@ngyro.com> <2FD91328-10FF-41C7-AFDF-E14F66916116@asu.edu> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:18:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <2FD91328-10FF-41C7-AFDF-E14F66916116@asu.edu> (John Soo's message of "Wed, 11 Mar 2020 02:17:15 -0700") Message-ID: <87lfo72cwt.fsf@ngyro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: John Soo Cc: 39309@debbugs.gnu.org Hi John, John Soo writes: > I like the idea of offering more cabal file semantics to package > authors. In that regards I have no issues with your patches. My only > thought is we should make the flags lists instead of booleans. Not > only would lists match the cabal file specification, but I think > having the extra detail would be a nice way to verify against existing > cabal files. I can=E2=80=99t imagine just yet how but I could see wanting= to > be able to specify which paths were being used and their order. My first attempt did exactly that, but I ran into some problems with it. IIRC, I had to worry about paths for transitive dependencies, which made it really hard to get working (and would make it really hard to maintain). This patch was take two. :) It=E2=80=99s a little less specif= ic but much easier to work with. > I am not opposed to the names of the fields either, I like that they > match the cabal fields. Good to hear. Maybe they=E2=80=99re not so bad. > Thanks again! I still need to take another look at this, but I=E2=80=99m not sure when I= =E2=80=99ll get the chance. I=E2=80=99ll try to carve out some time soon. Thanks agai= n to you for the patches. :) -- Tim