On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:51 AM, harry <volderm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So is the consensus that this would be a good idea (assuming that the > included packages met all of the usual requirements for HP inclusion), but > there's a lack of person-power to do it? > No: at least in my opinion this idea is out of scope for the Haskell platform project. The purpose of the platform is twofold: to give people a batteries-included binary Haskell installation, and secondly to select a group of recommended and "standard" libraries that the community can use as a common basis. A library has to make it into the second group before we package it into the binary, and for the kinds of packages you suggest (wxhaskell, Gtk2hs) I think that "we can build a binary artifact for this library on all of the operating systems we support" would be a prerequisite for inclusion. In other words, you're putting the cart before the horse. The path forward for these kinds of "add-on packs" is exactly as an "add-on" -- i.e. assumes the existence of the common platform in the expected place and installs the packages into that installation. If one of these can't easily be made as a standalone by the upstream project in question then we have little hope or interest in spending the effort to package it ourselves. G -- Gregory Collins <g...@gregorycollins.net>
_______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
