On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 21:48, Mark Lentczner <m...@glyphic.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Magnus Therning <mag...@therning.org> > wrote: >> >> I see no difference between HP and other packagers; we all are in the >> business of providing GHC and a choice of tools and libraries. To be >> a bit blunt: HP is a package of Haskell for platforms with poor >> package managers (read Windows). > > > To be equally blunt: I see users who use HP for Mac and Windows get up and > running easily. I see users that don't have "poor package managers" (read > Linux distros) struggle constantly in #haskell, even with HP. As a separate > thread, we should think about how to improve the situation for those with > good package managers!
I only keep up on issues around Haskell within ArchLinux, and I'm almost never on #haskell, so I'm completely ignorant of any of the struggles expressed on #haskell. It'd be interesting to hear what those are, but we'd better keep that for another thread. The main thing I can see upstream do to help packagers is keeping things separate. For instance even if GHC and GHCi is distributed in the same source package, make it possible to compile and install them separately (or at least have separate install-targets in the makefile). At the moment I have no issues with CABAL and how it works, packaging with it is rather painless. /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: mag...@therning.org jabber: mag...@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus _______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
