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

Feature request : multiple build configurations #392

Closed
alanz opened this issue Jun 24, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Feature request : multiple build configurations #392

alanz opened this issue Jun 24, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@alanz
Copy link
Contributor

alanz commented Jun 24, 2015

At the moment there is no way to override the stack.yaml config file for a project.

Certain packages need to support multiple compiler versions, and it would be useful to be able to run a stack test against each of these in turn.

Perhaps provide a command line flag to specify the particular stack.yaml to be used for a given operation.

Alternatively the stack.yaml format could support multiple configurations, but I think that would be unnecessarily complex.

Current context

Version 0.1.0.0, Git revision 67893a83d55810f2592c0073bae51aeaff14f142
@snoyberg
Copy link
Contributor

There's already support for a STACK_YAML environment variable to choose an alternate config file. Issue #378 is tracking making that a command line option as well.

@alanz
Copy link
Contributor Author

alanz commented Jun 24, 2015

Ok, sorry. I scanned over the issues before posting but missed that.

@alanz alanz closed this as completed Jun 24, 2015
@snoyberg
Copy link
Contributor

No problem. If you have an idea of a way to make it more prominent in the docs, that would be great.

@alanz
Copy link
Contributor Author

alanz commented Jun 24, 2015

I think having a --stack-yaml command line option will document it
sufficiently.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Michael Snoyman [email protected]
wrote:

No problem. If you have an idea of a way to make it more prominent in the
docs, that would be great.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#392 (comment)
.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants