On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:13:03 +0200, Reinier Lamers wrote: > Shouldn't we also add a note to the download page, stating that the safest > way to get a working darcs on OS X is MacPorts? And then say that the > binaries we provide are for those who need the latest & greatest, but are > probably not as well-tested? When I go to darcs.net, trying to get an OS X > version, I am directed to the binaries section without any mention of the > alternatives.
The downloads page should probably mention MacPorts. I'll note that the MacPorts seems to be a common cause of irritation among Mac users needing to install darcs. The complaint is simply that compiling GHC takes forever (MacPorts believes in being self-contained and therefore predictable, which seems sensible, but results in Mac users drumming their fingers for interminable GHC installations). Maybe this just goes away as computers get faster and faster :-) I've also been thinking that maybe... - We could do away with the 'Hard Way' installation instructions and just require cabal-install outright (although keeping the bits that specify, eg. how to build sans curl). Or maybe just add a footnote saying that if you really do not want to use cabal-install, see the darcs.cabal file for a list of dependencies. I imagine this is either controversial, or has been discussed before, though, so I won't press the issue. - The manual could recommend the Haskell Platform as an easy way to get both GHC and cabal-install So this is aiming towards the problem that people often either do not read (just skimming with eyes glazed over; I'm guilty of this) or misread... sort of a tough problem to copy with. -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgpoIla5txBca.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
