-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 697
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
doing cabal install --program-suffix=blah
produces a confusing message
#10476
Labels
cabal-install: cmd/install
re: --program-suffix
Concerning option `--program-suffix`
re: user experience
User experience (UX) issue
type: bug
Comments
ulysses4ever
added
type: bug
cabal-install: cmd/install
re: user experience
User experience (UX) issue
re: --program-suffix
Concerning option `--program-suffix`
labels
Oct 25, 2024
ulysses4ever
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 28, 2024
When checking for existing installations, cabal would not account for an affix (suffix or prefix). So, if you had a `hello` binary installed, installing a second one with a non-empty affix (a perfectly legal operation) would fail. The reason seemed to be a typo in 09c04e9, which passed the arguments to the Symlink structure in a wrong order. When failing to install a binary because of an existing one, cabal would report suffix-less existing target even if a suffix was set. fixup
5 tasks
ulysses4ever
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 28, 2024
When checking for existing installations, cabal would not account for an affix (suffix or prefix). So, if you had a `hello` binary installed, installing a second one with a non-empty affix (a perfectly legal operation) would fail. The reason seemed to be a typo in 09c04e9, which passed the arguments to the Symlink structure in a wrong order. When failing to install a binary because of an existing one, cabal would report suffix-less existing target even if a suffix was set.
geekosaur
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 2, 2024
When checking for existing installations, cabal would not account for an affix (suffix or prefix). So, if you had a `hello` binary installed, installing a second one with a non-empty affix (a perfectly legal operation) would fail. The reason seemed to be a typo in 09c04e9, which passed the arguments to the Symlink structure in a wrong order. When failing to install a binary because of an existing one, cabal would report suffix-less existing target even if a suffix was set.
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 2, 2024
…10483) * fix cabal install --program-suffix/prefix (fix #10290 and #10476) When checking for existing installations, cabal would not account for an affix (suffix or prefix). So, if you had a `hello` binary installed, installing a second one with a non-empty affix (a perfectly legal operation) would fail. The reason seemed to be a typo in 09c04e9, which passed the arguments to the Symlink structure in a wrong order. When failing to install a binary because of an existing one, cabal would report suffix-less existing target even if a suffix was set. * Add regression tests for overwrite policies and porgram-affixes Add regression tests for the `program-prefix` and `program-suffix` flags combined with the overwrite-policy. In short, the overwrite-policy needs to take potential program affixes into account when deciding whether it will need to overwrite a program path during installation. --------- Co-authored-by: Fendor <[email protected]>
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 3, 2024
…10483) * fix cabal install --program-suffix/prefix (fix #10290 and #10476) When checking for existing installations, cabal would not account for an affix (suffix or prefix). So, if you had a `hello` binary installed, installing a second one with a non-empty affix (a perfectly legal operation) would fail. The reason seemed to be a typo in 09c04e9, which passed the arguments to the Symlink structure in a wrong order. When failing to install a binary because of an existing one, cabal would report suffix-less existing target even if a suffix was set. * Add regression tests for overwrite policies and porgram-affixes Add regression tests for the `program-prefix` and `program-suffix` flags combined with the overwrite-policy. In short, the overwrite-policy needs to take potential program affixes into account when deciding whether it will need to overwrite a program path during installation. --------- Co-authored-by: Fendor <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit ee3c313)
5 tasks
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 3, 2024
…10483) * fix cabal install --program-suffix/prefix (fix #10290 and #10476) When checking for existing installations, cabal would not account for an affix (suffix or prefix). So, if you had a `hello` binary installed, installing a second one with a non-empty affix (a perfectly legal operation) would fail. The reason seemed to be a typo in 09c04e9, which passed the arguments to the Symlink structure in a wrong order. When failing to install a binary because of an existing one, cabal would report suffix-less existing target even if a suffix was set. * Add regression tests for overwrite policies and porgram-affixes Add regression tests for the `program-prefix` and `program-suffix` flags combined with the overwrite-policy. In short, the overwrite-policy needs to take potential program affixes into account when deciding whether it will need to overwrite a program path during installation. --------- Co-authored-by: Fendor <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit ee3c313)
5 tasks
geekosaur
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 3, 2024
…10483) * fix cabal install --program-suffix/prefix (fix #10290 and #10476) When checking for existing installations, cabal would not account for an affix (suffix or prefix). So, if you had a `hello` binary installed, installing a second one with a non-empty affix (a perfectly legal operation) would fail. The reason seemed to be a typo in 09c04e9, which passed the arguments to the Symlink structure in a wrong order. When failing to install a binary because of an existing one, cabal would report suffix-less existing target even if a suffix was set. * Add regression tests for overwrite policies and porgram-affixes Add regression tests for the `program-prefix` and `program-suffix` flags combined with the overwrite-policy. In short, the overwrite-policy needs to take potential program affixes into account when deciding whether it will need to overwrite a program path during installation. --------- Co-authored-by: Fendor <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit ee3c313)
geekosaur
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 3, 2024
…10483) * fix cabal install --program-suffix/prefix (fix #10290 and #10476) When checking for existing installations, cabal would not account for an affix (suffix or prefix). So, if you had a `hello` binary installed, installing a second one with a non-empty affix (a perfectly legal operation) would fail. The reason seemed to be a typo in 09c04e9, which passed the arguments to the Symlink structure in a wrong order. When failing to install a binary because of an existing one, cabal would report suffix-less existing target even if a suffix was set. * Add regression tests for overwrite policies and porgram-affixes Add regression tests for the `program-prefix` and `program-suffix` flags combined with the overwrite-policy. In short, the overwrite-policy needs to take potential program affixes into account when deciding whether it will need to overwrite a program path during installation. --------- Co-authored-by: Fendor <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit ee3c313)
geekosaur
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 3, 2024
…10483) * fix cabal install --program-suffix/prefix (fix #10290 and #10476) When checking for existing installations, cabal would not account for an affix (suffix or prefix). So, if you had a `hello` binary installed, installing a second one with a non-empty affix (a perfectly legal operation) would fail. The reason seemed to be a typo in 09c04e9, which passed the arguments to the Symlink structure in a wrong order. When failing to install a binary because of an existing one, cabal would report suffix-less existing target even if a suffix was set. * Add regression tests for overwrite policies and porgram-affixes Add regression tests for the `program-prefix` and `program-suffix` flags combined with the overwrite-policy. In short, the overwrite-policy needs to take potential program affixes into account when deciding whether it will need to overwrite a program path during installation. --------- Co-authored-by: Fendor <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit ee3c313)
mergify bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 5, 2024
…10483) (#10510) * fix cabal install --program-suffix/prefix (fix #10290 and #10476) When checking for existing installations, cabal would not account for an affix (suffix or prefix). So, if you had a `hello` binary installed, installing a second one with a non-empty affix (a perfectly legal operation) would fail. The reason seemed to be a typo in 09c04e9, which passed the arguments to the Symlink structure in a wrong order. When failing to install a binary because of an existing one, cabal would report suffix-less existing target even if a suffix was set. * Add regression tests for overwrite policies and porgram-affixes Add regression tests for the `program-prefix` and `program-suffix` flags combined with the overwrite-policy. In short, the overwrite-policy needs to take potential program affixes into account when deciding whether it will need to overwrite a program path during installation. --------- Co-authored-by: Fendor <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit ee3c313) Co-authored-by: Artem Pelenitsyn <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
cabal-install: cmd/install
re: --program-suffix
Concerning option `--program-suffix`
re: user experience
User experience (UX) issue
type: bug
Describe the bug
On the second run of the command you expect a failure because the target already exists. But the issue is that the "already exists" message cites a path without the suffix!
To Reproduce
Expected behavior
The error message should cite the path with the suffix. The non-suffixed path may not even exist at all, as shown above.
System information
cabal
3.10.3,ghc
9.6.5Additional context
Discovered when looking into #10290
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: