On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 01:48:04PM +0300, Kari Pahula wrote: > On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 07:55:02PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > I???d like to seize a suggestion from kaol and bring it up for discussion. > > He mentioned, on IRC I think, that it might be feasible to register > > haskell packages not by maintainer scripts, but by putting the package > > description in a well-known directory and let ghc6 build the package > > data base from that directory, via triggers. This approach has been > > introduced for doc packages with 6.10.1 and has worked well, it seems. > > The advantage would be less maintainer scripts (thus reduced > > complexity). > > > > Kaol, do you still think this is a worthwhile change? Do you already > > have any plans about that? > > Yes. Registering and unregistering cabal packages is so simple that I > see little need for carrying around that logic in every package. > > Things would get easier if we didn't even try to preserve local > changes to the global package registry. I'm leaning towards doing > that, since it's easy to use multiple local packages.conf files, > instead.
Would this mean that the local root user wouldn't be able to install packages from Hackage? If so, that is a very bad result. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
