David Menendez wrote:
Using Cabal directly, I can simply run the configure/build/install
process three times with different configuration options.
Is this possible with systems like RPM/apt/port/etc?
Yes. In the case of RPM and dpkg, we prefix a library's name with the
name and version of t
On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 21:17 -0400, David Menendez wrote:
> My point was that I'm not aware of any packaging systems that don't
> have a global "installed"/"not installed" bit for each package, which
> isn't suited to handling Haskell libraries.
I don't agree - you are assuming there is a one to o
On 9/23/07, Isaac Dupree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> > Hello David,
> >
> > Sunday, September 23, 2007, 10:28:41 PM, you wrote:
> >
> >> Let's say I have more than one Haskell implementation on my computer,
> >> e.g. GHC 6.6, GHC 6.7, and Hugs. (In MacPorts, these are the
Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
Hello David,
Sunday, September 23, 2007, 10:28:41 PM, you wrote:
Let's say I have more than one Haskell implementation on my computer,
e.g. GHC 6.6, GHC 6.7, and Hugs. (In MacPorts, these are the ghc,
ghc-devel, and hugs packages, respectively.)
Let's further say that
Hello David,
Sunday, September 23, 2007, 10:28:41 PM, you wrote:
> Let's say I have more than one Haskell implementation on my computer,
> e.g. GHC 6.6, GHC 6.7, and Hugs. (In MacPorts, these are the ghc,
> ghc-devel, and hugs packages, respectively.)
> Let's further say that I want to install t
On 9/23/07, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 20 September 2007 16:33, David Menendez wrote:
> > Does RPM, etc., deal with the fact that Haskell library installations
> > are specific to a particular platform?
>
> It depends what you mean with "deal": If it is only making sure tha
On Thursday 20 September 2007 16:33, David Menendez wrote:
> Does RPM, etc., deal with the fact that Haskell library installations
> are specific to a particular platform?
It depends what you mean with "deal": If it is only making sure that a given
binary library RPM matches the installed Haskell
On 9/18/07, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although this statement might be a bit heretical on this list, I'll have to
> repeat myself again that Cabal, cabal-install, cabal-whatever will *never* be
> the right tool for the end user to install Haskell packages on platforms with
> their own
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 07:24:08PM +0200, Sven Panne wrote:
> Although this statement might be a bit heretical on this list, I'll have to
> repeat myself again that Cabal, cabal-install, cabal-whatever
> will *never* be the right tool for the end user to install Haskell
> packages on platforms w
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 09:44, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
> This discussion has sparked a question in my mind:
>
> What is the process for the inclusion of modules / packages in ghc, hugs
> and other compilers & interpreters?
Personal interest of the people working on GHC et. al. ;-)
> I though
L PROTECTED]
09/18/2007 09:02 AM
To
"Ketil Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
haskell-cafe@haskell.org, Malcolm Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Library Process (was Building "production stable"
software in Haskell)
Hi
> I think th
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 11:14 +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> I would like to see the same separation forming between the ghc compiler
> itself (which would minimally include only the small number of libraries
> needed to build the compiler), and larger "distributions" which would be
> maintained by
Hi
> I think there is a niche for a subset of the hackage libraries providing
> an officially sanctioned standard library collection. Currently,
> hackage includes, well, everything. As such, it is a useful resource,
> but it would be useful to have a partitioning into two levels, where the
> "S
Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
What is the process for the inclusion of modules / packages in ghc, hugs and
other compilers & interpreters?
Propose to have the packaged added. There is a very low chance of this
being accepted. The only packages to have recently been added were
FilePath and ByteStrin
Dominic Steinitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought the master plan was that less would come with the compiler /
> interpreter and the user would install packages using cabal.
Ideally, yes. I think a useful model would be GNU/Linux, where there is
the Linux kernel, developed by core hackers,
Hi
> What is the process for the inclusion of modules / packages in ghc, hugs and
> other compilers & interpreters?
Propose to have the packaged added. There is a very low chance of this
being accepted. The only packages to have recently been added were
FilePath and ByteString, both of which were
This discussion has sparked a question in my mind:
What is the process for the inclusion of modules / packages in ghc, hugs and
other compilers & interpreters?
I thought the master plan was that less would come with the compiler /
interpreter and the user would install packages using cabal.
I
17 matches
Mail list logo
