On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 19:40 -0500, Spencer Janssen wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 08:21:50 +1000 > skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One way to measure this is: if you removed GHC and applications, > > and there are (necessarily) no users of the remaining library > > package .. the library package shouldn't be in the global public > > place (/usr/lib+include etc). > > As I understand it, the entire point of this effort (shared libraries > in GHC) is to allow dynamically linked Haskell executables. In this > case, applications outside the GHC toolchain will in fact depend on > these shared objects. As a concrete case, a binary darcs package could > be a user of libghc66-base.so and libghc66-mtl.so -- with no > dependencies on the GHC compiler package itself. > > Does this pass your litmus test?
Yes, it passes the separability test. My darcs wouldn't run otherwise! And versioning the library filename as above is a good idea too. Felix adds _dynamic for shared libs and _static for static link archives to ensure the Linux linker doesn't get confused. However, the libs still aren't fully public if the interfaces are only private details of the GHC tool chain. Hmmm. -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net> Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
