On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:40:03PM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote: > On 09 March 2005 21:13, Frederik Eaton wrote: > > >>> I agree that the case you're presenting is indeed more difficult, > >>> but I don't think you're doing the estimations right for the one at > >>> hand. The cost and annoyance of perhaps tens of thousands of people > >>> adding and remembering to maintain wrappers named 'ghc' somewhere > >>> in their path to accomplish this simple task (after scrounging in > >>> the documentation to find that ghc for some reason fails to be like > >>> many other compilers, a nontrivial cost in itself since the lack of > >>> environment variables isn't specifically documented) - or simply not > >>> doing so, and typing in -package-conf hundreds of times as I have > >>> done, because they may not have write access to the main > >>> package.conf - I think outweighs the cost of one person, once, > >>> adding central support for environment variables, a bit of > >>> documentation in the man page, perhaps a ghcbug program if we want > >>> super-detailed bug reports... > >> > >> Are you volunteering to be that person? ;-) > > > > Are you saying that a patch would be accepted? > > > > Frederik > > We'll definitely take the environment variable patch if it comes with a > ghcbug script :-)
Looking around ... why not just add environment variable information to the output of ghc -v (already it lists all packages). Or did you want something that would also submit a bug to the mailing list? One could have both, but it seems that since the environment variables might be different at the place where ghc is executed it would be better to include that information with the ghc -v output. Frederik -- http://ofb.net/~frederik/ _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list Glasgow-haskell-bugs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
