Subject: [bug#39309] [PATCH WIP] gnu: add stack.

From: Timothy Sample <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 10:18:10 -0400

Hi John,

John Soo <[email-masked]> 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’t 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’s a little less specific
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’re not so bad.

> Thanks again!

I still need to take another look at this, but I’m not sure when I’ll
get the chance.  I’ll try to carve out some time soon.  Thanks again to
you for the patches.  :)

-- Tim