On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 21:17 -0400, David Menendez wrote:
My point was that I'm not aware of any packaging systems that don't
have a global installed/not installed bit for each package, which
isn't suited to handling Haskell libraries.
I don't agree - you are assuming there is a one to one
David Menendez wrote:
Using Cabal directly, I can simply run the configure/build/install
process three times with different configuration options.
Is this possible with systems like RPM/apt/port/etc?
Yes. In the case of RPM and dpkg, we prefix a library's name with the
name and version of
On Thursday 20 September 2007 16:33, David Menendez wrote:
Does RPM, etc., deal with the fact that Haskell library installations
are specific to a particular platform?
It depends what you mean with deal: If it is only making sure that a given
binary library RPM matches the installed Haskell
On 9/23/07, Sven Panne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 20 September 2007 16:33, David Menendez wrote:
Does RPM, etc., deal with the fact that Haskell library installations
are specific to a particular platform?
It depends what you mean with deal: If it is only making sure that a given
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello David,
Sunday, September 23, 2007, 10:28:41 PM, you wrote:
Let's say I have more than one Haskell implementation on my computer,
e.g. GHC 6.6, GHC 6.7, and Hugs. (In MacPorts, these are the ghc,
ghc-devel, and hugs packages, respectively.)
Let's further say
On 9/23/07, Isaac Dupree [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello David,
Sunday, September 23, 2007, 10:28:41 PM, you wrote:
Let's say I have more than one Haskell implementation on my computer,
e.g. GHC 6.6, GHC 6.7, and Hugs. (In MacPorts, these are the ghc,
On 9/18/07, Sven Panne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although this statement might be a bit heretical on this list, I'll have to
repeat myself again that Cabal, cabal-install, cabal-whatever will *never* be
the right tool for the end user to install Haskell packages on platforms with
their own
Dominic Steinitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought the master plan was that less would come with the compiler /
interpreter and the user would install packages using cabal.
Ideally, yes. I think a useful model would be GNU/Linux, where there is
the Linux kernel, developed by core hackers,
Hi
What is the process for the inclusion of modules / packages in ghc, hugs and
other compilers interpreters?
Propose to have the packaged added. There is a very low chance of this
being accepted. The only packages to have recently been added were
FilePath and ByteString, both of which were
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
What is the process for the inclusion of modules / packages in ghc, hugs and
other compilers interpreters?
Propose to have the packaged added. There is a very low chance of this
being accepted. The only packages to have recently been added were
FilePath and
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 11:14 +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
I would like to see the same separation forming between the ghc compiler
itself (which would minimally include only the small number of libraries
needed to build the compiler), and larger distributions which would be
maintained by
Hi
I think there is a niche for a subset of the hackage libraries providing
an officially sanctioned standard library collection. Currently,
hackage includes, well, everything. As such, it is a useful resource,
but it would be useful to have a partitioning into two levels, where the
SLC
To
Ketil Malde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
haskell-cafe@haskell.org, Malcolm Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Library Process (was Building production stable
software in Haskell)
Hi
I think there is a niche for a subset of the hackage libraries providing
an officially sanctioned
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 09:44, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
This discussion has sparked a question in my mind:
What is the process for the inclusion of modules / packages in ghc, hugs
and other compilers interpreters?
Personal interest of the people working on GHC et. al. ;-)
I thought the
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 07:24:08PM +0200, Sven Panne wrote:
Although this statement might be a bit heretical on this list, I'll have to
repeat myself again that Cabal, cabal-install, cabal-whatever
will *never* be the right tool for the end user to install Haskell
packages on platforms with
15 matches
Mail list logo
