Cabal file specifies incorrect build type

[peti]

cryptol has a non-standard Setup.hs file. This means that the build-type must be set to custom rather than simple, otherwise Cabal cannot compile the package correctly:

$ runhaskell Setup.hs configure 
Warning: cryptol.cabal: Unknown fields: license-files (line 6)
Fields allowed in this section:
name, version, cabal-version, build-type, license, license-file,
copyright, maintainer, build-depends, stability, homepage,
package-url, bug-reports, synopsis, description, category, author,
tested-with, data-files, data-dir, extra-source-files,
extra-tmp-files, extra-doc-files
Configuring cryptol-2.2.1...
Setup.hs: configure script not found.

Also, note the warning about license-files, which is not a valid field. Furthermore, cabal-install warns:

$ cabal check
These warnings may cause trouble when distributing the package:
* 'ghc-options: -O2' is rarely needed. Check that it is giving a real benefit
and not just imposing longer compile times on your users.

* 'ghc-prof-options: -auto-all' is fine during development, but not
recommended in a distributed package.

[peti]

After further testing, it turns out that the problem is the Setup.hs file, really: the proper build type is "simple", but the package ships a non-trivial Setup.hs file!

[acfoltzer]

Good catch, we used to have a Configure build type, but I forgot to go back to a simpler Setup.hs when we moved away from that. However, I have not run into an issue where it complained about a missing configure script. Is it possible you're on an older version of cabal-install? That would also explain the complaint about the license-files field which was added in 1.20. For reference, we build using 1.22.

[peti]

Is it possible you're on an older version of cabal-install?

I don't use cabal-install at all. I build with GHC 7.8.4 and Setup.hs. Note the command line I pasted.

[acfoltzer]

Sorry, I should have said "cabal-install and the Cabal library". I can run the same command line without problems using Cabal-1.22.0.0. However, this is not a way of building that we can officially support, due to the fact that (unless something has changed recently) it precludes the use of sandboxes.