Am Samstag 27 Februar 2010 16:39:27 schrieb Andrew Coppin: > Diego Souza wrote: > > Hi, > > > > currently when one install a cabal package it compiles it and then > > install generated binaries. I wonder whether or not it would be useful > > to have pre-compiled binaries as many package managers usually do > > (e.g. apt). I often think that would save some time on the expense of > > a busier hackage server capable of generating packages for many > > different platforms. > > > > I'm particularly thinking on the following scenario: suppose that you > > have code that is ready for production. If cabal supported > > pre-compiled binaries, there is no need to install ghc or eventually > > any other compiler, just runtime environment and eventually cabal. I > > must say that I have no experience in doing this in Haskell (just > > personal/small projects), so I suppose one have to generate binaries > > and use other sort of package manager to deploy code to production > > (which sounds reasonable as well). Thus, if the assumption is correct, > > cabal is a development tool, not something one could to only deploy > > runtime-only packages. > > > > I also would appreciate if others could share how usually this is > > managed. > > As far as I know, Cabal is mainly used for deploying Haskell libraries.
Yes, Cabal: Common Architecture for Building Applications and Libraries > If you want to deploy a finished Haskell program, just compile it into > an executable program and make it downloadable from somewhere. (Much And since the binary doesn't need to be built anymore, you don't need Cabal or cabal for that. Of course, a central repo for binaries might be a good thing. > like a C program or any other kind of program.) For example, if you hunt > around, you can find Darcs available as a binary download (even for > Windows). Actually, I think you'll find more binaries for Windows than for *n*x, since commi ( ./configure && make && make install) is so simple. > > It might be nice if certain Haskell libraries were available in binary > form. The trouble is, Haskell libraries have to be recompiled for each > version of the compiler. This is why it's usually released in source > form; otherwise you have to make a bazillion different binaries, one for > every version of GHC on every platform that GHC runs on. That, and it's so much better to have the source around. Need a small modification of/addition to a library? Unpack, edit, bump version, build, install, offer patch to maintainer. How would you go about it if you only had the binary? > Much easier to > just compile from source, Unix-style. (And I've only come across one > Haskell package that takes more than 11 seconds to compile anyway.) So you've tried at most one of the GUI libraries, HPDF or highlighting- kate? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
