On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Bulat Ziganshin<bulat.zigans...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Magnus, > > Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 11:37:23 AM, you wrote: > >> I don't know of any other way either. I just strongly oppose the idea >> that HP should take on the role of providing C lib bindings just >> because on some platforms it's hard to satisfy the C dependencies. > > those some platfroms are 97% of all dowanloads and success on these > platforms is the key to overall Haskell success. moreover, asd i > understand the situation, lack of package manager on Windows was main > motivation to establish HP - for unicies it's not really required
80% of all internet-related statistics are made dubious ;-) I strongly doubt the "97% of all downloads" statement. However, that's not really what we are discussing here. This is the statement on the Haskell Platform page: "The Haskell Platform is a blessed library and tool suite for Haskell distilled from Hackage, along with installers for a wide variety of machines. The contents of the platform is specified here: Haskell: Batteries Included. "The platform saves you the task of picking and choosing the best Haskell libraries and tools to use for a task. Distro maintainers that support the Haskell Platform can be confident they're fully supporting Haskell as the developers intend it. Developers targetting the platform can be confident they have a trusted base of code to work with." The way _I_ read it, HP is a set of libraries that form a supplement to a Haskell compiler/interpreter. Developers can feel confident writing code against this set of libraries and it's the goal to make HP available on as many platforms as possible. I don't think that establishing HP was mainly motivated by the lack of a package manager for windows, I also don't think that HP is un-needed on Unices. AFAIU the motivation was to 1) separate the compiler/interpreter (especially GHC) from "base libraries", 2) to clearly communicate what Haskell packages a developer can expect to find on a "Haskell system", and 3) to provide users/developers with an easy route to setting up a "Haskell system" on different OSs. Difficulty to build a C dependency of a Haskell library should _not_ be a criterion used to decide whether the Haskell library goes into HP or not. Cabal is great for source distribution, but apparently there's a need for a binary packager, especially for Windows. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus@therning.org Jabber: magnus@therning.org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe