John Meacham wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:18:59PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > So I accept that we do not yet cover the range of configuration > > choices that are needed by the more complex packages (cf darcs), but I > > think that we can and that the approach is basically sound. The fact > > that we can automatically generate distro packages for hundreds of > > packages is not insignificant. This is just not possible with the > > autoconf approach. > This is just utterly untrue. autoconfed packages that generate rpms, > debs, etc are quite common. Can you give an example of how this works? I would expect autoconf scripts to be completely missing the necessary metadata to do this. > As for programs written in haskell, I don't want people's first > impression of haskell being "oh crap, I gotta learn a new way to > build things just because this program is written in some odd language > called 'haskell'" I don't care how awesome a language is, I am going > to be annoyed by having to deal with it when I just want to > compile/install a program. It will leave a bad taste in my mouth. > I would much rather peoples first impression be "oh wow, this > program is pretty sweet. I wonder what it is written in?" hence > they all use ./configure && make by design rather than necessity. On the flip side, ./configure && make is completely useless on native windows (i.e. without cygwin, mingw or the like) platforms, whereas cabal works everywhere GHC does. Cheers, Ganesh ============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ============================================================================== _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users