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.

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

Add cabal get --only-package-description #5162

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

hvr
Copy link
Member

@hvr hvr commented Feb 24, 2018

With this option, 'cabal get' writes to the destination directory only the
package description already available locally in one of the repository
indices.

The basename of the file name written to inside the target directory is
the package-id rather than only the package name.

This is mostly based on #1977

Co-authored-by: Miëtek Bak mietek@bak.io


Please include the following checklist in your PR:

  • Patches conform to the coding conventions.
  • Any changes that could be relevant to users have been recorded in the changelog.
  • The documentation has been updated, if necessary.

Please also shortly describe how you tested your change. Bonus points for added tests!

With this option, 'cabal get' writes to the destination directory only the
package description already available locally in one of the repository
indices.

The basename of the file name written to inside the target directory is
the package-id rather than only the package name.

This is mostly based on haskell#1977

Co-authored-by: Miëtek Bak <mietek@bak.io>
@23Skidoo
Copy link
Member

Looks all right on a first glance, but needs docs; this is the relevant manual section: https://cabal.readthedocs.io/en/latest/developing-packages.html#downloading-a-package-s-source

@hvr
Copy link
Member Author

hvr commented Feb 24, 2018

@23Skidoo just asking for the changelog-entry, is this 2.2 material or post-2.2 ?

@23Skidoo
Copy link
Member

I think it's low risk, we can merge it into 2.2.

@hvr
Copy link
Member Author

hvr commented Feb 24, 2018

@23Skidoo fwiw; I still need to get --pristine working -- --index-state already works out of the box, but --pristine doesn't yet (this is what blocked #1977 from getting merged originally). Depending on how I go about this, this may actually be more invasive than would be justifiable for 2.2 :-)

@jneira
Copy link
Member

jneira commented May 9, 2021

if this is still sensible I think pristine should be already working (I hope so, don't checked it)

Copy link
Member

@jneira jneira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This needs a changelog entry and updating docs but the code looks good

@jneira jneira self-requested a review April 21, 2022 21:27
Copy link
Member

@jneira jneira left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oops

@jneira
Copy link
Member

jneira commented Jul 3, 2022

Closing in favour of #8263, thanks all!

@jneira jneira closed this Jul 3, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants