On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Gregory Collins <g...@gregorycollins.net>wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Mark Lentczner <ma...@glyphic.com> wrote: > > Thanks for agreeing to take on this very important responsibility. And thanks also to Greg for all the work he's contributed to get us to this point. > > > > 1) Deliver the GHC installer package, but with a different postinstall > script that downloads, compiles and installs the Haskell Platform. (!) This > would be essentially the build.sh script from the Haskell Platform repo. > > I think it would be better to bundle them. > Strongly agree. I sometimes want to install the HP on a computer that's not networked; having a bundle is really nice for this. > > 2) Like #1, but include the source trees or tarballs of all the haskell > packages in the installer package, and have the build.sh script build from > those sources. > > > > 1&2 Result in only one framework (GHC) being installed on the Mac, and > the H.P. haskell packages are just managed by ghc-pkg & cabal just like any > other haskell packages the user installs. Further, while these take longer > to install, they guarantee that the packages are built in a way best for the > user's system. > > I think most users would prefer binaries but this would eliminate a > whole class of problems. Binaries should be provided, if for no other reason than new users can get started much more quickly. If I want to try out Haskell, and I have to wait a half hour (just guessing) for the installer to build everything, I'm going to get bored and probably figure "why bother?" Also, the HP is already distributed as source. Would a mac-specific version differ significantly from the basic source package? If so, it should probably be distributed anyway. John
_______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
