Re: 2012.2.0.0 final count down

On 2 June 2012 18:39, Mark Lentczner wrote: > We are in the final home stretch. Everything is staged and ready to go. We > are awaiting any last minute reports on the RCs. > merge pre-release branch into master, and push to github > move mac, windows, and source installers into place on lambda >

Re: Changes to GHC that will expose new packages

On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 23:24 -0700, David Terei wrote: > So do we have any proposal for a way forward here? seems the options now are: > > 1) Include mtl, haskeline, terminfo, utf8-string. Mark as hidden all except > mtl. > > 2) As above but rename all except mtl to be ghc-* > > 3) Discuss inclu

Mark Lentczner is our new release manager

All, Don Stewart and I have asked Mark Lentczner to be the release manager for the next major HP release (2012.2.0.0) and he has agreed to take on the task officially (he's been doing it in practice anyway). Our thanks to Mark for agreeing to take on this important community role. Duncan (and

Re: Changes to GHC that will expose new packages

On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 03:06 +, Ian Lynagh wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 06:39:44PM -0700, Mark Lentczner wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote: > > > > > We don't have a way to hide packages currently. We can mark them as > > > hidden in ghc's package database, but t

GHC version for next HP

Hi all, So our next release is aimed for May 2012. We obviously want to use a GHC 7.4.x release. We do not yet know for sure if there will be a 7.4.2 release in time for May. The GHC devs have not decided yet when to do a 7.4.2 release, but if they know that if they want to target the HP release t

Re: failure of GHC 7.0.4 on OS X

On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 22:50 -0700, Mark Lentczner wrote: > Here's where I am: > > Today I managed to build a 32-bit version HP 2011.3.0.0 (based on GHC 7.0.4 > from GHC central). This installs and runs on 10.6 and 10.7 (with some tweaks > applied to the ghc script). It will not run on 10.5 because

Re: failure of GHC 7.0.4 on OS X

On Sat, 2011-09-17 at 16:51 -0700, Mark Lentczner wrote: > In preparation for building the Haskell Platform 2011.3.0.0 installer for > Mac OS X, I've run into a snag: The GHC central distributed version of 7.0.4 > can't produce running executables. The problem comes at final link time, > which fail

Re: Updated package list for major release

On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 14:28 +0300, Yitzchak Gale wrote: > Duncan Coutts wrote: > > Here are the version changes... > > Some packages are not updated to their latest hackage versions... > > I hope all maintainers of packages in the platform are subscribed > to this list

Updated package list for major release

Hi all, Thanks for responding to my question about what we should do for this next release. So the plan is a major release using ghc-7.0.4 and bumping all the packages to the latest versions (where possible). So I've updated the haskell-platform.cabal file based on what looks like the latest sens

Re: Plans for next release

as normal for a major release. Duncan > On Monday, September 5, 2011, Duncan Coutts > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like to solicit opinions on what we should do for our next HP > > release. > > > > The main issue is GHC. We have GHC 7.2.1 out now

Plans for next release

Hi all, I'd like to solicit opinions on what we should do for our next HP release. The main issue is GHC. We have GHC 7.2.1 out now, but it's fairly widely agreed that it is not ready for an HP release. We are expecting GHC 7.4.1 towards the end of the year [1] and we do not expect there to be a

Re: Licenses

On 20 December 2010 02:14, Mark Lentczner wrote: > I took a look at the licenses for the included projects. > > They are all, but one, BSD3-like, though there are several minor variants of > the actual license text. > > The exception is syb which is part BSD3, and two parts which are based on the

Re: Haskell-Platform Committee Action!

On 17 December 2010 08:07, Isaac Dupree wrote: > You're right.  So, let's see if I'm clear what an HP proposal is > specifically: To add a package, or to remove a package.  But not to upgrade > a package or change a package (except where it adds new dependencies that > are not in the Platform).

Re: haskell-platform committee chair?

On 15 December 2010 04:05, Isaac Dupree wrote: > On 12/14/10 11:01, Duncan Coutts wrote: >> >> On 14 December 2010 08:46, Isaac Dupree >>  wrote: >>> >>> Did anyone volunteer to be the chair yet, to dispatch proposals to committee >>> members a

Re: Haskell-Platform Committee Action!

On 15 December 2010 06:36, Isaac Dupree wrote: > I need to ask y'all: are library patch proposals (like "Proposal: Add chop > function to Data.List") part of our mission?  Mostly all the libraries > maintained by librar...@haskell.org are part of the Haskell Platform now > (though not vice versa)

Re: haskell-platform committee chair?

On 14 December 2010 08:46, Isaac Dupree wrote: > Did anyone volunteer to be the chair yet, to dispatch proposals to committee > members and generally keep a guiding eye on the libraries list? > > If not, I'm willing to volunteer. We didn't really discuss it yet, though I suspect it will not be c

Re: packaging options for Mac OS X

On 24 November 2010 05:58, Mark Lentczner wrote: > I've been asked, and am willing to take over maintenance of the Mac OS X > installer from George. Great. > 3) Unpack the GHC installer package, build and install the Haskell Platform > haskell packages into that tree, and then re-create the in

Re: Contribution vs quality, and a few notes on the Platform process

On 11 November 2010 16:21, Ian Lynagh wrote: > Also, is there a better list than haskell-platf...@projects for > communicating with the steering committee? I don't see any addresses on > the committee list page: >    http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/Members We could do with setting u

Re: Contribution vs quality, and a few notes on the Platform process

On 11 November 2010 17:40, Ian Lynagh wrote: > Should the HP attempt to provide: > >    A set of packages that are popular and meet certain quality >    standards > > or: > >    A set of packages that are popular, meet certain quality standards >    and have a consistent API > > ? "has a consist

Re: haskell platform steering committee...

More thoughts... On 11 November 2010 18:04, Thomas Schilling wrote: > That's the problem, there is no HP committee.  There is a HP steering > committee but that is supposed not to make any decisions, only steer > discussions.  If you count the libraries@ list as the committee then > we might run

Re: haskell platform steering committee...

On 11 November 2010 18:04, Thomas Schilling wrote: > The problem we had with text is that we had Ian and Ross and perhaps a > few more on one side and Bryan and many others on the other side.  It > only got resolved because Bryan backed down, but I have a feeling that > if we had actually voted i

Re: haskell platform steering committee...

On 10 November 2010 22:23, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > No one has yet commented on my suggestion to split the process into two steps > (Step 1: yes/no, Step 2: refine the details under the guidance of the package > author).  Simon M's response (in person) was "that's just what we were doing, >

Re: haskell platform steering committee...

On 10 November 2010 19:14, Adam Wick wrote: > On 11/08/2010 07:37 AM, Duncan Coutts wrote: >> >> On 8 November 2010 09:23, Isaac Dupree >>  wrote: >>> >>> Incidentally, who is actually active in the steering committee? >> >> Your list below is r

Re: haskell platform steering committee...

On 10 November 2010 07:02, Isaac Dupree wrote: > On 11/08/10 10:37, Duncan Coutts wrote: >> About participation (and I've not been great myself), I think that if >> we have a round-robin system of assigning committee members to >> proposals then it'll help to p

Re: haskell platform steering committee...

On 8 November 2010 09:23, Isaac Dupree wrote: > Incidentally, who is actually active in the steering committee? Your list below is right http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/Members#SteeringCommittee http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/AddingPackages#History > I see (if I int

Re: Haskell Platform decision: time to bless parsec 3?

On 6 November 2010 15:18, Don Stewart wrote: > Hey all, > > This is a loose end in the package policy situation: when the HP has a > major upgrade, the policy is to do all major upgrades for any packages > contained in the HP, as long as they don't add new dependencies. > > One exception to this r

Re: Most popular libraries not in the HP

On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 09:07 -0700, Don Stewart wrote: > marlowsd: > > On 15/07/2010 23:53, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Don Stewart >> > wrote: > >> > >> Things we might realistically propose to add for 2011.1 > >> > >> New capab

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Multiple versions of a cabal package Or what's the right way to update?

On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 17:50 +0100, david fries wrote: > Dear Caféistas > > I desperately need your collective knowledge I have been working on > porting the haskell-platform to the FreeBSD operating system for a while > now and some versioning issues have come up. > > FreeBSD is still running on

cabal-install version in next HP release

Don, platform release people, I've realised we've got a release-critical bug in cabal-install that affects windows and prevents anyone from running cabal update successfully. We've got a fix already but I need to make a new 0.8.x release with this (and other) fixes. Can you tell me what the curr

Re: Packages that split hackage

On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 14:51 -0500, Isaac Dupree wrote: > Duncan Coutts wrote: > > I've been trying to make a consistent set of packages to test releases > > of Cabal and cabal-install. > > > > What I've noticed is that there are a small number of packages

RE: Packages that split hackage

On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 10:58 +, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote: > Duncan Coutts wrote: > > I've been trying to make a consistent set of packages to test > > releases of Cabal and cabal-install. > > Why not just build each package separately, rather than trying to do &g

Packages that split hackage

I've been trying to make a consistent set of packages to test releases of Cabal and cabal-install. What I've noticed is that there are a small number of packages that almost cut hackage down the middle. At the moment the main culprit is QuickCheck 1 vs 2 Whichever version you pick, you exclude a

regex-* versions for the next major Haskell Plaform release

Hi Christopher, For the upcoming major release of the Haskell Platform (the 2009.4.0.x series) we'd like to update to the latest versions of the regex-* libs. Ideally we would like the platform to build without warnings on GHC-6.10.4. Would you mind looking at the build warnings below. If you do

Re: Call for consensus: Haskell Platform package additions policy

On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 20:35 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 22:54 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > > > We would like to get this wrapped up so that we can move on to > > discussing more guidelines/requirements on packages and indeed to > > actually

Re: Any issues with the platform and Snow Leopard?

On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 11:29 -0400, Wilson MacGyver wrote: > judging by the comments, it doesn't sound like 6.12 will support 64bit on OSX. Correct. It will generate 32bit executables. Duncan ___ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects

Re: Any issues with the platform and Snow Leopard?

On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 16:29 -0400, Robert H wrote: > I just got SL and want to start learning Haskell. HP sounds like a good > way to go to get "everything". Yes, one workaround is needed to get ghc-6.10.x working on Snow Leopard: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/2965#comment:24 Simon

Call for consensus: Haskell Platform package additions policy

On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 22:54 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > We would like to get this wrapped up so that we can move on to > discussing more guidelines/requirements on packages and indeed to > actually proposing some packages. > > So far we have had a few people send in c

Re: Haskell Platform package additions: decision time!

On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 11:33 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > I basically agree with Duncan's points. The main advantages of a > checklist are that it helps organise the discussion and reminds people > what points are yet to be agreed upon. Right, and we can have a "you might like to think about th

Haskell Platform package additions: decision time!

All, About a month ago we came up with a recommendation for a procedure for adding new packages to the Haskell Platform. Initial announcement: http://haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2009-August/012397.html Proposed policy: http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/AddingPackages If you like

Re: Recommendation for the procedure to add platform packages

On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 13:02 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > Specific comments: > > "come to view on whether the package should be accepted" > -> "help achieve a consensus ... " We decided to clarify it slightly differently to make clear the distinction between forming a view and working with others

Re: Recommendation for the procedure to add platform packages

On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 13:02 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > > The main document contains: > >* the procedure itself, which is relatively short > >* a rationale, cross-linked to the procedure > >* a procedure to help us make decisions > > > > http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-pla

Re: Recommendation for the procedure to add platform packages

On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 02:23 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 03:04:20AM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > > > > There is also an example proposal: > > > > http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/Proposals/example > > > > So please s

Call for consensus: Question of HP updates that depend on new packages

On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 14:10 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > In particular the libraries list should decide if these new packages > should be rubber stamped because they are new dependencies of a package > already in the platform, or if the new packages should go through the > sta

Re: Recommendation for the procedure to add platform packages

On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 08:56 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote: > I found this > > "Compile on all operating systems and compilers that the platform targets." > > to be a little confusing. HP 2009.2.0.2 for Windows does include > Win32 (providing System.Win32). Of course there's not much point in >

Recommendation for the procedure to add platform packages

All, The Haskell Platform steering committee have been very busy over the past two weeks drafting, discussing and redrafting. The result is our recommendation to the libraries list for a procedure for adding new packages to the Haskell Platform. Before you all go off and read it, we'd like to s

RE: Question of HP updates that depend on new packages

On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 14:18 +0100, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote: > Duncan Coutts wrote: > > > When an updated version of an existing platform package includes > > dependencies on packages that are currently outside the platform we > > must decide if those packages are to

Question of HP updates that depend on new packages

All, A requirement of packages in the platform is that all dependencies of packages also be in the platform (excluding C libs). When an updated version of an existing platform package includes dependencies on packages that are currently outside the platform we must decide if those packages are to

Re: proposal for updates in next major HP release

On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 15:51 -0400, David Menendez wrote: > It would be nice if the packages in the Haskell Platform met some > minimum standards for documentation. Further on this topic... I think it's a problem with many of our libs that while we have good enough reference documentation, there

Re: proposal for updates in next major HP release

On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 15:51 -0400, David Menendez wrote: > It would be nice if the packages in the Haskell Platform met some > minimum standards for documentation. I think that's one of the many things we'll want to talk about after we agree the basic procedures for adding new packages. Currentl

proposal for updates in next major HP release

All, The previous decision[1] of the libraries list is that major HP releases are to be on a 4 month cycle for at least the first 12 months. [1]: http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/Policy That means we're aiming for the next major release being in early September, about a month away f

Re: Task of the HP steering committee

On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 18:51 -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote: > Duncan Coutts wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 10:38 -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote: > >> Duncan Coutts wrote: > >>> Maintainers propose their own packages, providing their own assessment > >>> agai

Re: Task of the HP steering committee

On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 15:17 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:57 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > > > So what I really want us to discuss is what we will present to the > > libraries list. What questions are we going to ask them and in what > > order. >

Re: Task of the HP steering committee

[ Resending to the list, for some reason the cc was to @community.h.o ] On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:57 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > So what I really want us to discuss is what we will present to the > libraries list. What questions are we going to ask them and in what > order. > &

Re: Task of the HP steering committee

On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 10:38 -0400, Isaac Dupree wrote: > Duncan Coutts wrote: > > Maintainers propose their own packages, providing their own assessment > > against a set of criteria. > > so if you're a random user/contributor then you have to ask your > favorite pa

Re: Windows installer 2009.2.0.2 RC2

Great. Thanks Mikhail. On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 09:02 +0200, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi all, > > I've uploaded the second 2009.2.0.2 release candidate installer to > > http://code.haskell.org/~refold/HaskellPlatform-2009.2.0.2-rc2-setup.exe > > Unless someone finds serious bugs in this RC, it

Task of the HP steering committee

members of the HP steering committee, Thanks all for volunteering. I hope you are all now subscribed to the haskell platform mailing list. If not please do so: haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org at http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform We should hold discussion

Re: HTTP and network in 2009.2.0.2

On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 05:00 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi all, > > I see that the haskell-platform.cabal file wasn't updated yet for > the 2009.2.0.2 release. Are we going to include new versions of > network and HTTP? Don and I discussed the updated. I've updated the wiki and I'll update

Volunteers for a Haskell Platform steering committee

All, We recently discussed on the libraries list the issue of major vs minor releases, their frequency and what should be included in each. http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/Policy There are a number of other policy decisions about the Haskell Platform that we will need to make in the

Re: Waiting for 6.10.4

On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 15:39 -0700, Don Stewart wrote: > Just a reminder, althought 2009.2.0.2 was initially planned for Monday > 13th, we're delaying the release until GHC 6.10.4 is out ("early this > week"). > > Likely package updates for this minor revision at this point are: > >network 2.2

Re: Next freeze: Wednesday

On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 07:19 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi, > > Don Stewart writes: > > > > # Freeze for package changes to 2009.2.0.2: Wednesday July 1 > > # 2009.2.0.2, Monday 13th July (6 weeks after .1) > > Are we going to include GHC 6.10.4 in 2009.2.0.2? It's a good point. We may

[Fwd: Job for someone: make a VM image for GHC development]

Interesting idea. Forwarded Message > From: Simon Marlow > To: glasgow-haskell-us...@haskell.org > > Subject: Job for someone: make a VM image for GHC development > Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:57:11 +0100 > > I forget who mentioned this to me, but I think it's a great idea. > >

Re: OSX installer -- first draft

On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 00:20 -0400, Gregory Collins wrote: > Hi all, > > After months of intense frustration I have something approaching a > reasonable OSX installer for the Haskell Platform. I'd appreciate it if > some OSX hackers could try it out. > > The installer can be downloaded from: > http

[Fwd: OSX installer -- first draft]

OSX users, please could you try out Gregory's Haskell Platform package below and send commentary to the platform list, or file tickets in the platform trac, that'd be great. http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/newticket?component=OSX%20installer The plan is that for ghc-6.12 and onwards, tha

Re: Windows installer 2009.2.0.1 RC2

On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 01:56 +0200, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi all, > > I've rebuilt the installer per Duncan's request. It can be downloaded from: > > http://code.haskell.org/~refold/HaskellPlatform-2009.2.0.1-rc2-setup.exe > > The changes in the second RC are: > > * Version number chan

new page recording policy decisions

All, This page is to record the platform policy decisions taken by the libraries mailing list: http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/Policy Currently it lists the conclusions arising from first question we asked about API compatibility in minor versions. Duncan

Re: [haskell-platform] #24: GHC in a directory with spaces causes configure failure

On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 09:22 +, haskell-platform wrote: > #24: GHC in a directory with spaces causes configure failure > ---+ > Reporter: larsv |Owner: refold > Type: defect |

Re: Windows installer 2009.2.1 RC1

On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 03:05 +0200, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi all, > > I've uploaded the 2009.2.1 release candidate installer to > > http://code.haskell.org/~refold/HaskellPlatform-2009.2.1-rc1-setup.exe Thanks Mikhail > Unless someone finds serious bugs in this RC, it can be released uncha

Re: time in 2009.2.1

On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 11:07 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 05:48 +0200, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > ghc-6.10.3 ships with time-1.1.3, but we list time-1.1.2.4 in > > haskell-platform.cabal. Shouldn't this library be upg

Re: Re[2]: time in 2009.2.1

On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 14:19 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: > Hello Duncan, > > Sunday, May 31, 2009, 2:07:36 PM, you wrote: > > >> ghc-6.10.3 ships with time-1.1.3, but we list time-1.1.2.4 in > >> haskell-platform.cabal. Shouldn't this library be upgraded? > > > Perhaps we should replace it with

Re: Building editline on Windows

On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 04:55 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Mikhail Glushenkov writes: > > > Judging by the comments in ticket #44, the main > > reason for it was API compatibility, but looking at GHC 6.10.2 docs, I > > don't see System.Console.Editline appearing anywhere. > > This is true on

Re: time in 2009.2.1

On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 05:48 +0200, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi all, > > ghc-6.10.3 ships with time-1.1.3, but we list time-1.1.2.4 in > haskell-platform.cabal. Shouldn't this library be upgraded? Aarg. Again, they've managed to release ghc with a library that is not in a release state. There i

windows installer sources

Hi Mikhail, I've recently got XP running in a VM so I can try out building the platform installer. Are the NSIS sources around somewhere? BTW, do you think perhaps we should keep them in the main platform repo? Is everything ok to be able to make an installer for 2009.2.0.1 on Monday? Do you hav

Re: OSX installer -- another status update

On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 10:02 -0400, Gregory Collins wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm making progress on the OSX installer front, torturously slow though > it may be. I wasted most of Tuesday trying to bundle GHC's OSX installer > inside the Haskell platform distribution -- it looks like GHC's > installer i

slight wiki reorganisation

I've reorganised the front page of the wiki and some of the subpages. I've tried to organise it by audience: * General audience and users * People who maintain platform packages * Distro packaging people * Release team For example the distro people and package maintainers

[Fwd: Platform policy question: API compatability in minor releases]

> From: Duncan Coutts > To: Haskell Libraries > Subject: Platform policy question: API compatability in minor releases > Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 19:50:01 +0100 > > Hello everyone, > > We (the platform release team) have a policy question about the Haskell > Platform. W

relationship between libraries mailing list and this list

All, Here's how we see the distinction between this mailing list and the libraries list: The libraries list represents the authority of the community. The libraries list is for policy questions where we need community authority for decisions. The platform list is

Re: Wiki access

On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 20:39 +0200, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Don, > > 2009/5/9 Don Stewart : > > Yes, you have to login in now (no more anonymous tickets/comments) > > Unfortunately, I can't edit the wiki even when logged in. Sorry, should be fixed now. BTW, if you've got a named account (

Release news and generic source installer RC

Hi all, So we've slightly slipped the release but if all goes well then Don will make the release tomorrow while I'm away at FITA[1]. In the mean time here is RC1 for the generic source installer: http://haskell.org/~duncan/haskell-platform-2009.1.1.tar.gz We're collecting results at: http://tra

Re: Windows Installer RC

On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 06:12 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi all, > > I've uploaded the release candidate Windows installer to > > http://code.haskell.org/~refold/HaskellPlatform-2009.2.0-rc1-setup.exe > > Unless someone finds serious bugs in this RC, this version will > be released on Mond

Re: Windows Installer RC

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 01:39 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Duncan, > > Duncan Coutts writes: > > > [...] > > I've added milestones for 2009.2.1 and .2. > > While you're at it, can you also add a "Windows installer" component? Done. Also

Re: Windows Installer RC

On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 20:53 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Claus, > > Claus Reinke writes: > > > Pre Cabal, ghc installations were *relocatable* (no hardcoded absolute > > paths, everything relative to where ghc is). Some of us have occasionally > > used that to run ghc from a usb drive o

Re: Where is the best place to report bugs

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:04 +0200, Luis Cabellos wrote: > it works, but I needed to install libgmp. But doesn't that mean ghc didn't actually work until you did install gmp? > The point is is to add the libgmp check on configure. Right and my point is that can't we achieve that by testing if gh

Re: Windows Installer RC

On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 14:57 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote: > Could you please provide some details about what the default > installation mode will do to the system settings or registry, so that > people can make an informed choice about which installation mode > to use? File types used, associated act

Re: Third-party C libraries policy?

On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 11:19 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote: > >> Currently, glut32.dll is not bundled with the Windows installer, > >> though it probably should be. I vaguely remember that it is not > >> part of the base XP install (though I have glut32.dll in > >> WINDOWS\system32 for some reason). >

Re: Third-party C libraries policy?

On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 04:19 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi all, > > Currently, glut32.dll is not bundled with the Windows installer, > though it probably should be. I vaguely remember that it is not > part of the base XP install (though I have glut32.dll in > WINDOWS\system32 for some reaso

Re: Release dates

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 22:13 +0200, Luis Cabellos wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Duncan Coutts > wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:25 +0200, Luis Cabellos wrote: > >> Maybe, it worth to change releases number to time-based numbering > >> > >

Re: Final word on OpenAL?

On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 19:58 +0200, Sven Panne wrote: > [ resending mail because of some strange Postfix error message ] > > Am Donnerstag, 30. April 2009 19:19:54 schrieb Don Stewart: > > We definitely want to avoid a culture of "packing in bug fixes and > > features" prior to release, though, as

Re: Final word on OpenAL?

[ also resending because the cc keeps getting changed to haskell-platf...@community.haskell.org which does not exist!! ] On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 19:55 +0200, Sven Panne wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 30. April 2009 19:19:54 schrieb Don Stewart: > > We definitely want to avoid a culture of "packing in bug f

Re: Release dates

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:05 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Duncan, > > Duncan Coutts writes: > > > It's not as simple as I'd like. Does anyone have any better suggestions > > that fit our requirements? > > What about 2009.1.0-beta1 ? Sadly we

Re: Release dates

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:25 +0200, Luis Cabellos wrote: > Maybe, it worth to change releases number to time-based numbering > > e.g: > * 2009.05.04 instead 2009.2.0 > * 2009.06.01 instead 2009.2.1 > * 2009.07.13 instead 2009.2.2 Not all releases are equal. We need an indication of maj

Re: Release dates

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 14:11 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: > Hello Duncan, > > Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 1:58:33 PM, you wrote: > > Releases: > > * 2009.2.0, Monday 4th May > > * 2009.2.1, Monday 1st June (4 weeks after .0) > > * 2009.2.2, Monday 13th July (6 weeks after .1

Re: Patches for generic Haskell Platform tarball

On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 18:29 +0200, Benedikt Huber wrote: > Hi, > I've tested the generic unix tarball on Mac Os X and found a few > problems: > 1) configure.ac: does not call AC_CANONICAL_TARGET, therefore > $target_os is not set. > 2) build.sh/tell: Bash function does not work properly when ar

Release dates

All, So, release dates. We're supposed to be doing time-based releases. Let's pick some dates! Releases: * 2009.2.0, Monday 4th May * 2009.2.1, Monday 1st June (4 weeks after .0) * 2009.2.2, Monday 13th July (6 weeks after .1) First release is very soon (this coming Mond

Re: Where is the best place to report bugs

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 11:25 +0200, Luis Cabellos wrote: > Hi, > >where is the best place to report bugs? There's the platform trac: http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/ >e.g. make raises the error: >/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgmp > >I think the problem is ./configure in ge

Re: Final word on OpenAL?

On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 01:24 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi all, > > what is the final word regarding inclusion of OpenAL? I for one > would vote against including it, since it is not essential IMO > and can be always added later. > Second, what is the current target release date for 2009.0

Re: Final word on OpenAL?

On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 18:25 +0200, Sven Panne wrote: > Am Dienstag, 28. April 2009 03:24:23 schrieb Mikhail Glushenkov: > > what is the final word regarding inclusion of OpenAL? I for one > > would vote against including it, since it is not essential IMO > > and can be always added later. [...] >

Re: Windows installer - beta release

On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 10:34 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Bulat, > > Bulat Ziganshin writes: > > > 1) afair, you use nsis? installer size too large, adding this line to > > .nsi should make it twice smaller: > > > > SetCompressor /SOLID lzma > > Thanks, I'll use that! > > > 2) i propo

Re: Windows installer - beta release

On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 21:42 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi all, > > The beta version of the Windows installer is ready and can be > downloaded from > > http://code.haskell.org/~refold/HaskellPlatform-2009.0.0-setup.exe > > Please test and report any bugs you encounter. Good work Mikhail!

Re: more package changes

On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 10:20 +, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Duncan, > > Duncan Coutts writes: > > > We are inclined to drop OpenAL from this first release of the platform. > > The rationale is that we cannot use the released version because there > > are bugs

Re: Re[2]: more package changes :-(

On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 14:27 +0400, Bulat Ziganshin wrote: > Hello Ian, > > Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 2:12:25 PM, you wrote: > > > I don't think existing HP libraries should be exempt from new > > requirements in future HP releases. Either they should be fixed to meet > > the requirements, or the

  1   2   >