Add program prefix and suffix to `BuildOptions` by sheaf · Pull Request #11787 · haskell/cabal

sheaf · 2026-05-05T09:49:51Z

This commits adds two new fields of BuildOptions, namely programPrefix and programSuffix. This allows the installed executable program prefix and suffix to be set by SetupHooks for packages with build-type: Hooks.

Template Α: This PR modifies behaviour or interface

Include the following checklist in your PR:

Patches conform to the coding conventions.
Any changes that could be relevant to users have been recorded in the changelog.
The documentation has been updated, if necessary.
Manual QA notes have been included.
Tests have been added. (Ask for help if you don’t know how to write them! Ask for an exemption if tests are too complex for too little coverage!)

ulysses4ever · 2026-05-05T13:23:42Z

Should cabal-install be updated to use these fields to handle affixes (prefixes and suffixes)? It handles them today on the higher level, but now, if we can do it on the library level, we add redundancy?

sheaf · 2026-05-06T08:14:05Z

Should cabal-install be updated to use these fields to handle affixes (prefixes and suffixes)? It handles them today on the higher level, but now, if we can do it on the library level, we add redundancy?

Which part of the cabal-install codebase are you referring to specifically?

All I could find was this, in Distribution.Client.CmdInstall:

ignoreProgramAffixes :: ConfigFlags -> ConfigFlags
ignoreProgramAffixes configFlags =
  configFlags
    { configProgPrefix = NoFlag
    , configProgSuffix = NoFlag
    }

ulysses4ever · 2026-05-06T10:47:32Z

I'm talking about these configProgPrefix/configProgSuffix. Are setup hooks not able to leverage those? Or vise versa?

sheaf · 2026-05-06T10:53:49Z

I'm talking about these configProgPrefix/configProgSuffix. Are setup hooks not able to leverage those? Or vise versa?

SetupHooks don't use ConfigFlags; ConfigFlags is part of the command-line interface for ./Setup.

ulysses4ever · 2026-05-06T18:36:12Z

@sheaf my bad. I dived a little deeper to try to substantiate my hunch, and here is the place that bothers me:

cabal/Cabal/src/Distribution/Types/LocalBuildInfo.hs

Lines 318 to 322 in e6ff0cc

    
           progPrefix, progSuffix :: LocalBuildInfo -> PathTemplate 
        
           progPrefix (LocalBuildInfo{configFlags = cfg}) = 
        
             fromFlag $ configProgPrefix cfg 
        
           progSuffix (LocalBuildInfo{configFlags = cfg}) = 
        
             fromFlag $ configProgSuffix cfg

Shouldn't these read from the new build options instead? Something like:

progPrefix, progSuffix :: LocalBuildInfo -> PathTemplate
progPrefix lbi@(LocalBuildInfo{configFlags = cfg}) =
  fromMaybe
    (fromFlag $ configProgPrefix cfg)
    (programPrefix lbi)
progSuffix lbi@(LocalBuildInfo{configFlags = cfg}) =
  fromMaybe
    (fromFlag $ configProgSuffix cfg)
    (programSuffix lbi)

jappeace · 2026-05-13T16:08:45Z

Hi, some questions because I'm curious.
Why would you want this?
(Isn't there an issue for this as well?)

Also, wouldn't a test be helpful to assert the prefix and suffix gets passed down in a hook build type situation?

tdammers

This does not actually introduce any code that uses these fields, does it?

sheaf · 2026-05-28T08:20:27Z

@sheaf my bad. I dived a little deeper to try to substantiate my hunch, and here is the place that bothers me:

cabal/Cabal/src/Distribution/Types/LocalBuildInfo.hs

Lines 318 to 322 in e6ff0cc

progPrefix, progSuffix :: LocalBuildInfo -> PathTemplate

progPrefix (LocalBuildInfo{configFlags = cfg}) =

fromFlag $ configProgPrefix cfg

progSuffix (LocalBuildInfo{configFlags = cfg}) =

fromFlag $ configProgSuffix cfg

Shouldn't these read from the new build options instead? Something like:
progPrefix, progSuffix :: LocalBuildInfo -> PathTemplate
progPrefix lbi@(LocalBuildInfo{configFlags = cfg}) =
  fromMaybe
    (fromFlag $ configProgPrefix cfg)
    (programPrefix lbi)
progSuffix lbi@(LocalBuildInfo{configFlags = cfg}) =
  fromMaybe
    (fromFlag $ configProgSuffix cfg)
    (programSuffix lbi)

Yes, excellent point. The values in ConfigFlags are just for the CLI, once the data makes it into BuildOptions we should always pull from there. I'm fixing this now.

sheaf · 2026-05-28T08:37:46Z

Why would you want this?

This was requested in #11168.

Also, wouldn't a test be helpful to assert the prefix and suffix gets passed down in a hook build type situation?

This does not actually introduce any code that uses these fields, does it?

I added a test now.

jappeace · 2026-06-04T19:31:38Z

Thanks 🙏🏽

Mikolaj · 2026-06-18T17:40:00Z

@sheaf: do you think it's ready to merge? If so, could you add a label? Do you think this should be backported to 3.18?

sheaf · 2026-06-18T19:40:53Z

@sheaf: do you think it's ready to merge? If so, could you add a label? Do you think this should be backported to 3.18?

Just need to update the structured test for CI. Yes, I think it would make sense to backport so that all the improvements to Hooks land in a single version.

mergify · 2026-06-19T11:04:15Z

Queued — the merge queue status continues in this comment ↓.

zlonast · 2026-06-27T12:08:16Z

@sheaf may have missed it

mergify · 2026-06-27T12:41:13Z

Merge Queue Status

✅ Entered queue — 2026-06-27 15:06 UTC · Rule: default · triggered by @sheaf with the merge queue checkbox
❌ Checks failed — 2026-06-27 22:31 UTC · on draft merge queue: checking master (d64d329) and [#11787 + #11769] together #12044
✂️ Bisecting to identify the failing PR (round 1/1)
❌ Checks failed · on draft merge queue: checking master (d64d329) and #11787 together #12045 · identified as the failing PR
🚫 Left the queue — 2026-06-27 22:37 UTC · at 75389a947398aad66753b81881ae43dabc9efbb7

This pull request spent 7 hours 30 minutes 54 seconds in the queue, including 1 hour 53 minutes 16 seconds running CI.

Waiting for

All conditions

Reason

The merge conditions cannot be satisfied due to failing checks

docs/readthedocs.org:cabal
fourmolu
hlint
whitespace
Check sdist post job
Changelogs

Failing checks:

Hint

You may have to fix your CI before adding the pull request to the queue again.
If you update this pull request, to fix the CI, it will automatically be requeued once the queue conditions match again.
If you think this was a flaky issue instead, you can requeue the pull request, without updating it, by posting a @mergifyio queue comment.

This commits adds two new fields of `BuildOptions`, namely `programPrefix` and `programSuffix`. This allows the installed executable program prefix and suffix to be set by `SetupHooks` for packages with `build-type: Hooks`. Fixes haskell#11168

zlonast · 2026-06-28T08:57:38Z

@Mergifyio queue

mergify · 2026-06-28T08:57:46Z

sheaf force-pushed the hooks-prefix branch 2 times, most recently from 24c1c44 to bf07ec8 Compare May 5, 2026 11:39

sheaf marked this pull request as ready for review May 5, 2026 11:40

sheaf added the attention: needs-review label May 5, 2026

ulysses4ever requested a review from Copilot May 6, 2026 17:15

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of ulysses4ever May 6, 2026 17:16 View session

tdammers approved these changes May 26, 2026

View reviewed changes

sheaf force-pushed the hooks-prefix branch 2 times, most recently from c4daf04 to 3181f38 Compare May 28, 2026 08:36

sheaf force-pushed the hooks-prefix branch 3 times, most recently from eafe997 to 5629b87 Compare May 28, 2026 11:47

Mikolaj requested a review from jappeace June 4, 2026 17:49

jappeace approved these changes Jun 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

sheaf force-pushed the hooks-prefix branch from d973799 to 54a15da Compare June 18, 2026 21:31

sheaf added merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge and removed attention: needs-review labels Jun 18, 2026

sheaf force-pushed the hooks-prefix branch from 7405e33 to dae8761 Compare June 19, 2026 09:17

mergify Bot added ready and waiting Mergify is waiting out the cooldown period merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days waiting too long automatically set by Mergify to trigger a warning labels Jun 19, 2026

sheaf force-pushed the hooks-prefix branch from dae8761 to 75389a9 Compare June 27, 2026 12:53

mergify Bot added the queued label Jun 27, 2026

mergify Bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 27, 2026

Merge of #11787

add5088

This was referenced Jun 27, 2026

cabal-install: add --build-timings flag #11769

Merged

merge queue: checking master (ee7d5da), #12017, #12006 and [#11787 + #11769] together #12042

Closed

mergify Bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 27, 2026

Merge of #11787

1397789

mergify Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 27, 2026

merge queue: checking master (d64d329) and [#11787 + #11769] together #12044

Closed

mergify Bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 27, 2026

Merge of #11787

811fb69

mergify Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 27, 2026

merge queue: checking master (d64d329) and #11787 together #12045

Closed

84 tasks

mergify Bot added dequeued and removed queued labels Jun 27, 2026

mergify Bot added queued and removed dequeued labels Jun 28, 2026

mergify Bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2026

Merge of #11787

71783fc

mergify Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 28, 2026

merge queue: checking master (bc27d17) and [#11787 + #11769] together #12049

Closed

mergify Bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 28, 2026

Merge of #11787

f234fb4

mergify Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 28, 2026

merge queue: checking master (bc27d17) and #11787 together #12050

Closed

84 tasks

mergify Bot merged commit e4d6c7c into haskell:master Jun 28, 2026
72 checks passed

mergify Bot removed the queued label Jun 28, 2026

Uh oh!

Conversation

sheaf commented May 5, 2026

Uh oh!

ulysses4ever commented May 5, 2026

Uh oh!

sheaf commented May 6, 2026

Uh oh!

ulysses4ever commented May 6, 2026

Uh oh!

sheaf commented May 6, 2026

Uh oh!

ulysses4ever commented May 6, 2026

Uh oh!

jappeace commented May 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tdammers left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sheaf commented May 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sheaf commented May 28, 2026

Uh oh!

jappeace commented Jun 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Mikolaj commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

sheaf commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

mergify Bot commented Jun 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

zlonast commented Jun 27, 2026

Uh oh!

mergify Bot commented Jun 27, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merge Queue Status

Reason

Hint

Uh oh!

zlonast commented Jun 28, 2026

Uh oh!

mergify Bot commented Jun 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merge Queue Status

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

jappeace commented May 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

sheaf commented May 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading

mergify Bot commented Jun 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

mergify Bot commented Jun 27, 2026 •

edited

Loading

mergify Bot commented Jun 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading