Regardless, you'd think Cabal could provide some way to make it easy to
state where the files it needs actually are. Currently it does not.
Well, it uses ghc-pkg to record where the various libraries, etc. are.
Otherwise, it could be that none of the Cabal developers are really
that
Stephen Tetley wrote:
Windows has a standard place for header files
path-to-MinGW\MinGW\include
Isn't that MinGW has a standard place for header files?
I'm guessing if you use DJGPP or MS VisualStudio or Borland C++, it's
not going to look there (unless you tell it to).
On 30 August 2010 11:26, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Stephen Tetley wrote:
Windows has a standard place for header files
path-to-MinGW\MinGW\include
Isn't that MinGW has a standard place for header files?
Strictly speaking its Haskell-on-Windows has a standard place
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/30/10 06:26 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
Stephen Tetley wrote:
path-to-MinGW\MinGW\include
Isn't that MinGW has a standard place for header files?
I'm guessing if you use DJGPP or MS VisualStudio or Borland C++, it's not
going to look there
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
On Linux, if I do, say, cabal install zlib, it falls over and tells me
it can't find the zlib headers. So I go install them, rerun the command,
and it works. On Windows, I issue the same command and it falls over and
says that autoconf
On 29 August 2010 21:46, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
The problems I claim windows has with respect to compiling and
installing FOSS:
a) No standard place to find C include files.
b) No standard place to find libraries.
c) No standard way to find if common open source
On 28 Aug 2010, at 04:58, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Mathew de Detrich wrote:
There is also Leksah and GVim
The Leksah that I recently noted can't be built on Windows?
I am not familiar with that Leksah :-)
Seriously though here is one way to build it...
Install Haskell Platform
Use TakeOffGW
On 29 August 2010 13:24, Hamish Mackenzie
hamish.k.macken...@googlemail.com wrote:
Use TakeOffGW (http://sourceforge.net/projects/takeoffgw/) to install :
Hi Hamish
Does TakeOffGW work well in practice? The intentions behind it are
admirable but at the moment it seems rather new.
On 30 Aug 2010, at 00:55, Stephen Tetley wrote:
On 29 August 2010 13:24, Hamish Mackenzie
hamish.k.macken...@googlemail.com wrote:
Use TakeOffGW (http://sourceforge.net/projects/takeoffgw/) to install :
Hi Hamish
Does TakeOffGW work well in practice? The intentions behind it are
Isn't there a binary for Leksah on the main site for windows anyways?
On 29/08/2010 10:24 PM, Hamish Mackenzie
hamish.k.macken...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 28 Aug 2010, at 04:58, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Mathew de Detrich wrote:
There is also Leksah a...
I am not familiar with that Leksah :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/29/10 08:05 , Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
On 29 August 2010 21:46, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
a) No standard place to find C include files.
b) No standard place to find libraries.
c) No standard way to find if common
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/29/10 13:06 , Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
may have stuff in /opt/SUNWsft (Solaris), /opt/kde (SuSE), /usr/local,
Wrong path for Solaris. *sigh* We don't use Sun's OSS package, in part
because we don't have anything newer than Solaris 9.
-
On 29 August 2010 18:06, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH allb...@ece.cmu.edu wrote:
DLLs can be put into C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 or equivalent (e.g. Windows NT
liked to install itself in C:\WINNT instead of C:\WINDOWS). LIB files are
less standard and I'm under the impression that every IDE uses its own
On Aug 27, 2010, at 4:52 PM, John Millikin wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 20:51, I wrote:
Maybe Linux is different. One thing is NOT different, and that is
Linux upgrades *DO* reliably break programs that use dynamic linking.
Upgrading Linux should never, ever cause applications to stop
On Aug 27, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Why would you ever want to install a package per-user? I mean, if you don't
have permission to do a global install, then you also don't have permission
to install GHC in the first place so...? Indeed, the *only* plausible reason
I can
On Aug 27, 2010, at 11:40 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
What all this proves is that XML can be horrid, or it can be just fine.
Personally, I would have no problem with writing
Namefoo/Name
Version1.0/Version
SynopsisThis does stuff./Synopsis
Now I don't have to worry about whitespace; XML
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Windows has more package management facilities than most people realise.
For example, go install Office 2007. In fact, just install Excel 2007,
not the whole thing. Windows Installer can automatically figure out that
you *do* need to
On 28/08/10 09:55, Andrew Coppin wrote:
[...]
How about hoping that Linux and Mac devs are going to realise that Windows
doesn't have some of the problems that people claim it does?
Hmm, thinking about it... nah, that's not happening anytime soon either.
;-)
Can you provide some links to
Andrew Coppin wrote:
On Linux, if I do, say, cabal install zlib, it falls over and tells me
it can't find the zlib headers. So I go install them, rerun the command,
and it works. On Windows, I issue the same command and it falls over and
says that autoconf doesn't exist. It doesn't even
Hmm, Sunday morning reply before caffeine.
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Andrew Coppin wrote:
On Linux, if I do, say, cabal install zlib, it falls over and tells me
it can't find the zlib headers. So I go install them, rerun the command,
and it works. On Windows, I issue the same
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/26/10 23:51 , Richard O'Keefe wrote:
Indeed, every Linux upgrade I've had I've found myself screaming in
frustration because programs *weren't* statically linked.
RH/Fedora? We ditched RH completely after I found myself repeatedly
On 27 August 2010 19:13, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
If you look at the original Cabal design document[1], you'll see that one
of the goals of Cabal was to be the glue that lets you convert an arbitrary
Haskell library into a native package for a
I agree with this comment in regards to cabal building binaries for similar
reasons that John Macheam is. Cabal is fine for libraries (in fact I can
classify it as pretty damn good) but for binaries it is a different matter
for programs that don't use a simple build system/structure. Cabal is just
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
On 27 August 2010 19:13, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Why would you ever want to install a package per-user? I mean, if you don't
have permission to do a global install, then you also don't have permission
to install GHC in the first place
On 27 August 2010 20:13, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
On 27 August 2010 19:13, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com
wrote:
If you were to use binary installers for regular Haskell packages, the
only
real benefit would be that you can now
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
On 27 August 2010 20:13, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Windows has more package management facilities than most people realise.
But that's one specific installer; not a generic package management
system (in terms of the extra
On 27 August 2010 21:40, Andrew Coppin andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
I
would point out what happened with X configuration recently: they went
from an ini-style configuration file that was relatively human
readable and editable (especially if you were basing
On 8/27/10, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Admittedly, Haskell has no multi-line
String support which would make defining something like the
Description field harder...
Quick correction: Haskell *does* have multi-line strings. For example:
This is a\
\ nice
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Unfortunately, I haven't found anything for Windows yet which has syntax
hilighting for Haskell.
I use SciTE, which has hilighting for a bazillion languages (including XML
and JSON), but not Haskell sadly.
There is also Leksah and GVim
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:14 PM, C. McCann c...@uptoisomorphism.net wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Unfortunately, I haven't found anything for Windows yet which has syntax
hilighting for Haskell.
I
C. McCann wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Andrew Coppin
andrewcop...@btinternet.com wrote:
Unfortunately, I haven't found anything for Windows yet which has syntax
hilighting for Haskell.
I use SciTE, which has hilighting for a bazillion languages (including XML
and JSON), but not
Felipe Lessa wrote:
On 8/27/10, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Admittedly, Haskell has no multi-line
String support which would make defining something like the
Description field harder...
Quick correction: Haskell *does* have multi-line strings. For example:
Mathew de Detrich wrote:
There is also Leksah and GVim
The Leksah that I recently noted can't be built on Windows?
And GVim... well the fact that it has vi in the name makes me nervous.
Still, let's try not to start another Holy War here. ;-)
___
On 28 August 2010 00:02, Felipe Lessa felipe.le...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/10, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com wrote:
Admittedly, Haskell has no multi-line
String support which would make defining something like the
Description field harder...
Quick correction: Haskell
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Windows has more package management facilities than most people realise.
For example, go install Office 2007. In fact, just install Excel 2007,
not the whole thing. Windows Installer can automatically figure out that
you *do* need to install the Spell Checker (since
marlowsd:
If you look at the original Cabal design document[1], you'll see that
one of the goals of Cabal was to be the glue that lets you convert an
arbitrary Haskell library into a native package for a variety of systems
- including MSIs on Windows. Indeed, I must admit when we were
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Don Stewart d...@galois.com wrote:
marlowsd:
If you look at the original Cabal design document[1], you'll see that
one of the goals of Cabal was to be the glue that lets you convert an
arbitrary Haskell library into a native package for a variety of systems
David Leimbach wrote:
It's quite practical. People are obsessed with shared library support
but I can not for the life of me figure out why.
Maybe because a simple Hello World program in Haskell becomes about 2MB
when compiled? (The equivilent C program ends up being 15KB or
something,
It does make a difference in certain cases. For a 2MB binary to be trivial
it assumes that (1) you are in a developed country (2) you are using a
landline internet connection and not going through your cell-phone company,
although this gap is closing fast.
I feel this India whenever I visit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/26/10 10:23 , David Leimbach wrote:
Go, for example, has no shared libraries, and the runtime fits in every
binary. It does not even depend on libc. Go binaries call the system call
interface of the kernel, and the net result is that I get
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH
allb...@ece.cmu.edu wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/26/10 10:23 , David Leimbach wrote:
Go, for example, has no shared libraries, and the runtime fits in every
binary. It does not even depend on libc.
On Aug 27, 2010, at 6:11 AM, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote:
Um. That's a really good way to have all your programs stop working when
the Linux kernel interface changes yet again (ABIs? We don't need no
steenking ABIs! --- see in /usr/src/linux/Documentation). Solaris is
similar; the only
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 20:51, Richard O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz wrote:
Maybe Linux is different. One thing is NOT different, and that is
Linux upgrades *DO* reliably break programs that use dynamic linking.
Dynamic libraries get
- left out
- changed incompatibly
- moved some place
43 matches
Mail list logo
