Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

solver not considering cabal flags #1071

Closed
erikkaplun opened this issue Sep 28, 2015 · 3 comments
Closed

solver not considering cabal flags #1071

erikkaplun opened this issue Sep 28, 2015 · 3 comments
Labels
awaiting pull request newcomer friendly type: enhancement
Milestone
P2: Should

Comments

@erikkaplun
Copy link
Contributor

when I add this

  reactive-banana-wx: 
    buildExamples: true

to the flags section of stack.yaml, stack build starts complaining about missing dependencies (random and executable-path) and proposes adding random-1.1 and executable-path-0.0.3 to extra-deps, however, the next run of stack build complains about random-1.1 and suggests something closer to 1.0.* is needed. So I remove the 2 newly added items from extra-deps and try to make stack solver figure it out on its own. However, stack solver surprisingly responds with "no changes needed".

— does this mean stack solver doesn't take into account the flags section in stack.yaml?
@snoyberg
Copy link
Contributor

Correct, that's the current behavior, since part of the solver step is to determine flags for us. It could be argued that explicit flag settings present in stack.yaml should be respected. It shouldn't be hard to implement this, want to take a crack at such a change and report how it works on your project?

@borsboom borsboom added this to the P2: Should milestone Oct 6, 2015
sebastianpoeplau added a commit to sebastianpoeplau/stack that referenced this issue Oct 11, 2015
@sebastianpoeplau
Consider user-specified package flags in stack solver commercialhaske…
232198c 
…ll#1071
@sebastianpoeplau
Copy link
Contributor

I've tried an implementation (see referenced merge request). @eallik, would you mind testing how it works for your project?

snoyberg added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 12, 2015
@snoyberg
Merge pull request #1143 from sebastianpoeplau/master
3c7e588 
Consider user-specified package flags in stack solver #1071
@snoyberg
Copy link
Contributor

Implemented by #1143.

dysinger added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2015
@dysinger
Merge branch 'master' into sig-sign-sdist-and-upload-sign
3da50d0 
* master: (59 commits)
  Ignore global database when copying precompiled packages #1146
  Revert an unneeded change to 'runAndLog'
  Remove old GHCJS unpack directory if it exists
  Allow "stack setup ghcjs-0.1.0.20150924_ghc-7.10.2"
  Properly unzip GHCJS on windows (stack setup)
  Consider user-specified package flags in stack solver #1071
  Fix a warning
  Colored build status in filewatch mode
  Add NixOS to 'How to install'.
  Include NixOS information #1118
  Style improvements for Docker compatibility check
  Fix `awaiting pr` label link
  Fix GHC 7.8 build
  Docker: check host's stack compatibility by attempting to run in container and caching the result (#974)
  Fix formatting in `explicit-setup-deps` section
  Provide more information about changed files
  Compile custom Setup.hs instead of interpreting them (fixes #1041)
  Detect when hpc report gives trivial 100% #1009
  Unified coverage report #579
  Recommend extra-dep in yaml_configuration.yml
  ...
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
awaiting pull request newcomer friendly type: enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
P2: Should
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@erikkaplun @snoyberg @sebastianpoeplau @borsboom