* Gabor PALI ([email protected]) wrote: > I created the split ports [1] for darcs. It seems to be nice:
Hm, I feel double about this. On the one hand, it's nicely splitting library from implementation, on the other hand, it's overcomplicated (as most master/slave ports), just look at the plist. Also, will both ports have the same option list? If yes, what happens if you specify conflicting options for them? Building it twice also doesn't feel good. It'd probably be ok if it was two separate ports, building only needed stuff and having separate set of options. However, I still think that the best would be to just have "darcs" that "installs modules as a bonus", like some other end-user applications do (and some even install modules for several language at once). The only drawback is not having hs- prefix, which as I told, is not expected by users, and should not be expected even by haskell programmers. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D [email protected] ..: jabber: [email protected] http://www.amdmi3.ru _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
