On November 28, 2012 04:45:57 Joachim Breitner wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 27.11.2012, 21:57 -0500 schrieb Tyson Whitehead: > > I was so excited for a bit thinking that this would finally mean that > > Debian would move to a dynamic system. Every haskell binary being 10s > > of MBs (e.g., pandoc = 25MB executable) makes it look kind of bad. > > its not like dynamic libraries make the bytes disappear – the > (non-Haskell-developer) user who wants to use pandoc still has to > install all these bytes, but now they just come split in a dozen of > packages.
My point was more trying to get at the idea that maybe we don't need a separate copy of most of the bytes in each application. > Or gix-annex, a more and more popular Haskell application: Building it > requires 94 Haskell library packages. Now imagine this to be dynamically > built: Now installing git-annex will require 94 strage sounding packages > that the user most likely has no idea what they are about, and chances > are high that there is no other packages requiring these shared > libraries, making most of the benefit of shared libraries moot. > > Now, if Haskell was as popular as C and the user _would_ run several > different processes at once that could share the shared library, this > would be interesting. At the moment, I do not see how dynamically built > Haskell programs are in the interest of our user. I guess this is really a question of how many haskell programs are there being used out there. From the looks of popcon results, there isn't a whole lot of take up on anything at moment apart from ghc, xmond, and pandoc. > > I was left with the impression that we were going to have this back in > > 2010 just as soon as squeeze got out the door... :) > > It seems that noone cared enough about that, but any help is welcome. > Two things to do: Patch haskell-devscripts to build the -dyn ways, and > manually adding the additional package stance to the debian/contol files > (if it is to be decided that the -dyn libraries should reside in > packages of their own. If we decide to include them in the regular > packages, this is not needed.) Fair enough. If I was update my 2010 patch so it worked again at some point in the upcoming year (I don't have the time to do this at the moment), would there be a reasonable chance it would seem worthwhile to include it at this point? Please feel free to say no here if that is the case. I realize that maybe in a few years, when there are even more haskell applications, we can revisit the again, and possibly then it will make more sense. Cheers! -Tyson PS: I don't mean to be critical here. You've done a lot of work supporting haskell under Debian, and it's all volunteer. I really appreciate that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
