Ian | By the way, did we agree to drop the extralibs now in the #ghc meeting? | I couldn't quite tell if there was a conclusion or not. That should | solve all but the bandwidth/gateway issues.
Ah, apologies -- I should have cc'd you on my question to Don and Duncan about the Haskell Platform. See below. Don's reply suggests that we should include 'extralibs' in the GHC release. A subsequent release of the Haskell Platform might supercede these libraries, but that's ok. The advantage from my point of view is that users get a usable GHC without a strict dependency on HP. So it's fine with me. Simon M doesn't think it would give rise to any technical problems. So shall we do that? What do you think? If so, we need to start building extralibs again. Simon -----Original Message----- From: Don Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 September 2008 20:24 To: Simon Peyton-Jones Cc: Duncan Coutts; Simon Marlow Subject: Re: The haskell platform simonpj: > Don, Duncan > > Thanks for all your work on the Haskell Platform and cabal-install. > > Question: on what date do you plan to release a HP that users > can install as the "batteries" for GHC 6.10? > > We need to decide whether to *rely* on HP, or instead release 6.10 > with extralibs as previously (thereby sidestepping HP). We've always planned to release the HP *after* 6.10 is out, testing and creating an entirely independent library suite, with its own release process. I would suggest GHC still provides the core and extralibs bundles. The HP will appear a few weeks later, and the distributions and package systems will start supporting the HP in turn. Duncan, does fit with what you were thinking? -- Don _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
