In fact it'll come with the Haskell Platform, and that's feasible
because I don't think we're planning to make relocatable binary
distributions of the HP.
Not having relocatable binary distributions would be sad indeed,
especially as a regression from what we used to have. Being able
to use ghc from an external drive, or over network connections
with randomly assigned drive letters, was rather useful for presentations,
and I believe was also used by lecturers in theatres with fixed PCs.
Oh, you're talking about not just install-time relocation, but run-time
relocation!
You can use GHC like this on Windows, and you'll still be able to do that.
Thanks, that is reassuring to know.
But GHC is unusual in that it doesn't need any registry stuff to run:
most Windows software needs to be installed on the local machine before it
can run at all. I've never seen anyone just mount a remote drive for the
purposes of running something during a presentation - normally you'd use
RDP or VNC or something, or on Unix, SSH to the remote machine.
I've done that on rare occasions when I didn't have any control over
what was on the presentation machine, or when the only unix machines
I could ssh from there didn't have the latest ghc or libraries I needed. So
I'd have ghc and vim on a usb drive, or on a network drive (where the
network machine hosting the binaries wouldn't be able to interpret them,
but the presentation PC would;-).
Isn't that just the problem we're talking about? It is not about wanting
to have multiple Haddock installations. After the switch to Haddock 2,
there will _have to be_ one Haddock installation per GHC installation.
Not necessarily - how often do you need to run Haddock against something
other than the libraries for your most recent installed GHC?
Every time I install a package for another GHC version. Which is
- often/occasionally, for the latest stable ghc
- occasionally/often, for a recent ghc head
- rarely, for earlier ghcs
No problem with haddock 0.9..
So, does this "think of Haddock 2 as a library" mean there'll be no
more binary Haddock releases? Or, what would a Haddock 2 binary
release look like? Obviously, it would need to include libghc, but
would it also need to include all of ghc/ghc-pkg, so that anyone wanting
to haddock a source depending on other packages can build/install
those packages with haddock's ghc before haddocking the source
of the importing module?
Claus
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
