On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:33:21 +0000, Vladimir Zlatanov wrote: >Yes, those are good points. Maybe adding functionality similar to plt's >planet http://planet.plt-scheme.org and >http://download.plt-scheme.org/doc/371/html/mzscheme/mzscheme-Z-H-5.html#node_sec_5.4 > >In plt scheme including a module, not present in the local repository , >but included via planet, resolves the module, including version, >etc..., downloads it from planet, and uses it appropriately. It makes >following various dependencies extremely easy. Updating with a new >version is updating the appropriate local module definitions. > >I have no clue how it would be best to implement this for haskell, but >it is a very user friendly no hassle way to work, so I reckon worth >investigating.
Many other programming languages have packaging strategies that sound very similar. Several of them have managed to have a negative impact on platforms that already have good packaging technologies (i.e. almost every platform apart from Windows ;-). I'd hate to see Haskell go in a direction where packaging for e.g. Debian is made more difficult than it is at the moment. See [1] for the Debian Ruby packagers' opinion of RubyGems. IIRC similar concerns have been raised for Python's eggs. /M [1]: http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus．therning＠gmail．com http://therning.org/magnus
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
