At 2002-06-10 04:03, Simon Marlow wrote:
It sounds like frameworks are similar in concept to GHC's packages.
They solve a similar problem in a quite different way. A framework is a
bundle: an actual directory with everything inside it, libraries,
header files, localised strings, whatever,
Title: Lucky Nugget Online Casino
Download the free Lucky Nugget Online Casino? software,open a real account, and you will get $10 ABSOLUTELYFREE - No Purchase Required!Then purchase $100 and you'll get another $100 BONUS!
And there's a problem: ghc-pkg uses Read, and that requires all the
fields to be there. It would be a Bad Idea to force everyone
to update
every single package.conf file out there. Is there any special reason
why it doesn't use the ParsePkgConf.y parser from
compiler/main? (Simon: Am I
I have a problem with the readline license that applies to ghc, and
programs compiled with ghc.
The readline library is under the GPL license. This means that any
program (including ghc) that links with this library must itself be
licensed under the GPL.
*G*
Yes, you're right. I
Can anyone help? I would like to run a program using the Haskell
Graphics Library under GHC on Windows. HGL is listed as a package
(when ghc is asked about its packages) but not actually distributed
as a package with ghc-5.02.3. On trying to remedy this,
- I am able to compile HGL by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK, here it is. The GHC ebuild for Gentoo Linux has been incorporated in the
official package tree (search http://www.gentoo.org/index-packages.html)!
This means that it is available to anyone running Gentoo, so you can now
safely claim to run on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 11. June 2002 19:58, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
Sven Moritz Hallberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
2) I read a comment somewhere (in some script or so) saying something
along
the lines of once we are cross-compiling. Are there
I'm being provocative, I know. I'm not trying to insult though, just to
encourage a creative discussion.
Me too. But I've never seen a flame war on any haskell list, so I trust that no one will be insulted if we present our differing opinions in a strong way. We'll just have to take this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 11. June 2002 21:49, Wolfgang Thaller wrote:
I'm being provocative, I know. I'm not trying to insult though, just to
encourage a creative discussion.
Me too. But I've never seen a flame war on any haskell list, so I trust
that no
At 2002-06-11 08:18, Simon Marlow wrote:
This is *so* annoying when all we're trying to do is write free software
here.
This reminds me... who legally owns GHC?
* the University of Glasgow?
* Simon and Simon?
* Microsoft?
* many different people and institutions?
--
Ashley
:) The question here is, are you (plural) really trying to write
Free Software or just giving something away now, which will be
closed and hogged later?
The copyright holder(s) of a piece of software is free to change which
license future copies are released under. It makes no difference
this is somewhat misleading, although the copyright holder may always
distribute their works under another license, they cannot retroactivly
change the license on previous releases. once something is gpl'ed it
always is. the author may also release it under other licenses, but the
gpled version
On 12 Jun 2002, Alastair Reid wrote:
The copyright holder(s) of a piece of software is free to change which
license future copies are released under. It makes no difference
whether the license is GPL, BSD, Artistic, Microsoft EULA, or
whatever.
Yes.
In other words, the GPL gives no more
13 matches
Mail list logo
