Skip to content

don't describe build actions that are no-ops #468

bos opened this Issue May 24, 2012 · 1 comment

3 participants

Haskell member
bos commented May 24, 2012

(Imported from Trac #475, reported by @dcoutts on 2009-01-24)


This is actually an excellent review. It's funny and spot on. It picks up some of the real things that people notice but that Cabal hackers are blind to because we're too used to the way things are.

One thing it picks up on:

Preprocessing executables for interpreter-0.1...
Building interpreter-0.1..
The commentator notes

This actually illustrates a couple of nice things. First, I
really like the message about preprocessing executables. I
haven’t said anything about preprocessors in my Cabal
metadata file, but Cabal is helping me to realize that
perhaps I could have. Or perhaps it’s telling me that it has
to do some preprocessing as part of the build, even if I
haven’t told it about preprocessors. This is good knowledge
to have about the build process
Indeed, we could perhaps avoid printing the status message unconditionally, but instead only do it if we're actually going to be doing any work.

Second, I’d like to highlight the line “building
interpreter-0.1”. Cabal is actually building a file called
dist\build\interp\interp.exe. But it’s not confusing me with
that – rather, it’s reminding me of the project name and
version I defined in my Cabal metadata file!
Perhaps we should make the configure message say the package name, but then for executables and libs say the name of the library or executable.

jsl commented Feb 24, 2015

Given that there is no activity on this since 2009, I propose closing. Please re-open or create a new issue if this is still something that should be addressed.

/cc @tibbe

@tibbe tibbe closed this Feb 24, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.