Rework `Package` to reflect structure of Cabal packages about hadrian HOT 9 OPEN

@hvr will hopefully jump in this thread at some point, but if I remember correctly, he was interested in simplifying the way we build haddock, through this.

from hadrian.

Wouldn't this relate to #18?

from hadrian.

@angerman No, this is separate. It's not clear how soon we want this. The build system can operate successfully without this, so I think we better not assign a milestone to this issue. As soon as someone presents a clean solution we'll merge this.

from hadrian.

Ohh. I'm sorry!

from hadrian.

No problem. Maybe @bgamari will pick this up once he gets some more spare time to hack on this project.

from hadrian.

Is this still relevant? What is the consequence of identifying cabal as a Library only?

from hadrian.

@izgzhen Yes, it is still relevant, but low priority. At the moment Hadrian will not be able to properly cope with a package that is both a library and, say, a utility.

from hadrian.

@hvr mentionned to me that he may need support for this soon and is looking into ways to have the make build system accept that. We might want to start discussing how we would achieve this ourselves, in Hadrian land :)

from hadrian.

@alpmestan Aha, interesting! I think it shouldn't be very difficult to support in Hadrian. If this becomes a priority, I'm happy to have a look at it.

Which package is this going to be?

from hadrian.