Joachim Breitner <[email protected]> writes: Joachim Breitner <[email protected]> writes:
>> I think it is important to point out that the Haskell platform >> metapackage is for developers, rather than users. > this is an interesting opinion. I was under the impression that the > platform was aiming for the user that wants to compile software not > provided by his distribution. Okay, I separated people into "users" (apt-get install foo) and "developers", clearly, a user who compiles some software falls between, and is closer to my "developer" than my "user". So, for somebody stumbling across a random Haskell program and wants it compiled, it's a great advantage to be able to say "apt-get install haskell-platform, and type Make". For somebody getting a cabalized package off Hackage, they *could* get almost the same convenience using cabal-install, but the distribution packages are more likely to be automatically upgraded, bugfixed, bug-tracked and tested - both for compatibility with each other, and with the distribution-supplied C libraries, and probably by a larger audience, so it's more likely to work -- or at least, if it doesn't, you're less likely to be alone with your problem. But surely I don't need to pontificate the advantages of apt-get in this forum...? > If the platform is really meant to be for developers only, then > there is no urgent need for distribution support. Except that: > Application developers are very likely to be using cabal anyways, ...which is a *disadvantage*, application end up depending on a hodge-podge of different libraries and versions. Having a widely distributed Platform will foster standardisation and portability. I'm a developer, and I try to stick with what my distribution ships, rather than the latest and greatest from Hackage. So I'm very, very happy to see that my distribution is picking up. Thanks! > or at least able to selectively install the libraries from the platform > via apt-get. True - but which HTTP library to choose? Which RDBMS library? Which XML parser? If one is HP-blessed, the choice is a lot easier. > And when it comes to packaging applications that use > the platform, we could just replace this dependency in the cabal > file by the libraries that are actually used. (Which we probably > should do in any case). Yes, I don't think applications should depend on the platform - unless the platform starts to be distributed as a single entity upstream. But I do think that any distribution should strive to provide the libraries contained in the platform, and once you do, I see no good argument about providing a metapackage pulling them all in. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
