This is a good idea. Maybe the infrastructure can support a haskell directory under lang/ where all of the haskell ports could reside.
The existing arrangement is modeled on FreeBSD's port layout, which is a relatively flat hierarchy. This, I think, was caused by the limitations of using makefiles. Darwinports is driven by tcl scripts so in principle there is no reason not to organize the port tree as a deeper hierarchy.
This would especially help the perl/python/gtk maintainers, as the number of supported versions grows.
BTW, sometime soon I'll put together a haskell toolkit meta-port, which will build ghc, alex, haddock, buddha, c2hs, hat and anything else that people want. The idea is to have a consistent set of versions, so you can start a build in the evening and have a consistent, working ghc development environment ready to use by the time you enjoy a cup of coffee the next morning.
Greg
On May 20, 2004, at 5:22 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
Do we have enough Haskell now for it to have it's own category?
Python and other languages have their own category and it makes
it easier for folks like me to "browse the haskell library" of darwinports.
That is unless we can get some kind of decent query system in Darwinports
for finding out what's available. I think a good enough query system would
make most categories somewhat superfluous.
dave
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
