Claus Reinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. there are no systems where packages just work!
there are systems where a few people ensure that
many people can live in such an illusion, though.
Exactly. Integrating Cabal packages into the system package manager
is still non-trivial, and a
Well, that's true. I guess what I'm really objecting to in Claus's message
is the implication that we should always use a Haskell Installation
Manager, even on systems with good built-in package management.
what was implied was that haskell installation manager (HIM)
and native package
Achim Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Caveat: I have only a vague grasp on what exactly is being criticized
here - using a modern Linux distribution, tons of packages are
available, and almost all issues Claus point out seem to be taken care
of - at least as far as I can see.
Well, then
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 14:54 +0200, Ketil Malde wrote:
You have a point, though, and I wouldn't mind at all cabal-install
being integrated into portage,
I'm not too familiar with portage, but I think a better solution is to
provide tools to automatically generate packages for the various
Not sure about it's current state, but a friend was working on this
until he graduated recently: http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/projects/Wipt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ketil Malde
Aren't there any usable third-party package managers for
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 11:33 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Claus Reinke wrote:
- i don't want to have to remove anything explicitly, becausethat
would mean bypassing the haskell installation managers
- i would want to see a single haskell installation manager
for each system,
I
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:22:07PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
As I see it we need both. We need to make it easy to translate cabal
packages into distro packages. We do have tools to do that at the moment
for Gentoo, Debian and Fedora. I'm sure they could be improved.
However we cannot
I think that's fundamentally the wrong approach. We shouldn't have to
build a Haskell installation manager. Would you also want installation
managers for Perl, Python, Ruby, C, C++, etc. each with their own different
user interfaces and feature sets? I think not - you want a single package
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 15:25 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
Well, you have a point but still don't have one. Many of gentoo's
haskell .ebuilds are seriously outdated, eg. wxhaskell still depends on
ghc 6.4. See Damnit, we need a CPAN
The haskell overlay features about 240 packages from alex
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 15:14 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
I think that's fundamentally the wrong approach. We shouldn't have to
build a Haskell installation manager. Would you also want installation
managers for Perl, Python, Ruby, C, C++, etc. each with their own different
user
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Claus Reinke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- it isn't sufficient to worry about installation management,
one has to worry about integration, lifetime and uninstall
management as well. in short, maintain the dependency
graphs over any of
11 matches
Mail list logo
