You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now the constraints file generated by new-freeze is called cabal.project.freeze, and the D.C.ProjectConfig code looks for it by that name. This makes it difficult to support multiple compiler versions in a project, though. The current workaround is to have CI symlink to the appropriate freeze file based on an environment variable, but this is pretty clunky.
Would it be possible to add a --freeze-file=foo.freeze option to the relevant commands? Would it make more sense to generalize to --extra-config-file, since these the freeze file is just mappended to the other config files?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@acfoltzer I was thinking of making the includes into the main cabal.project fully explicit, which would 1. make it clearer what files are used and how they're combined, 2. make it possible to use more complex setups. In that case it's not needed to have a freeze-file option except for when generating one, to produce one with the non-default name.
Right now the constraints file generated by
new-freeze
is calledcabal.project.freeze
, and the D.C.ProjectConfig code looks for it by that name. This makes it difficult to support multiple compiler versions in a project, though. The current workaround is to have CI symlink to the appropriate freeze file based on an environment variable, but this is pretty clunky.Would it be possible to add a
--freeze-file=foo.freeze
option to the relevant commands? Would it make more sense to generalize to--extra-config-file
, since these the freeze file is just mappended to the other config files?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: