On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 09:16 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > > As I see it we need both. We need to make it easy to translate cabal > > packages into distro packages. We do have tools to do that at the moment > > for Gentoo, Debian and Fedora. I'm sure they could be improved. > > > > However we cannot expect all distros (esp Windows) to have all packages > > that are on hackage at all times. That's where it makes sense to have a > > tool like cabal-install as a secondary package manager. There's also the > > fact that most distro package managers do not handle unprivileged > > per-user installations very well. > > Well, that's true. I guess what I'm really objecting to in Claus's message > is the implication that we should always use a Haskell Installation > Manager, even on systems with good built-in package management. > > Yes, I agree we need good support for managing packages for the other > scenarios: no system package manager, home-directory installs, no > pre-prepared system package. I just don't want whatever provision we make > for these cases to replace the system package manager for global package > installs on systems where that is well supported.
Indeed. I wholly agree. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
