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.
what was implied was that haskell installation manager (HIM)
and native package manage
"Claus Reinke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. there are no systems where "packages just work"!
>there are systems where a few people ensure that
>many people can live in such an illusion, though.
Exactly. Integrating Cabal packages into the system package manager
is still non-trivial,
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Claus Reinke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - it isn't sufficient to worry about installation management,
> one has to worry about integration, lifetime and uninstall
> management as well. in short, maintain the dependency
> graphs over any of "install"/"upgrade
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 15:14 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
> > I think that's fundamentally the wrong approach. We shouldn't have to
> > build a "Haskell installation manager". Would you also want installation
> > managers for Perl, Python, Ruby, C, C++, etc. each with their own different
> > use
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 15:25 +0200, Achim Schneider wrote:
> Well, you have a point but still don't have one. Many of gentoo's
> haskell .ebuilds are seriously outdated, eg. wxhaskell still depends on
> ghc 6.4. See "Damnit, we need a CPAN"
>
> The haskell overlay features about 240 packages from
I think that's fundamentally the wrong approach. We shouldn't have to
build a "Haskell installation manager". Would you also want installation
managers for Perl, Python, Ruby, C, C++, etc. each with their own different
user interfaces and feature sets? I think not - you want a single package
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:22:07PM +0100, Duncan Coutts 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 e
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 11:33 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Claus Reinke wrote:
>
> > - i don't want to have to remove anything explicitly, becausethat
> > would mean bypassing the haskell installation managers
> > - i would want to see a single haskell installation manager
> >for each syst
Not sure about it's current state, but a friend was working on this
until he graduated recently: http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/projects/Wipt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ketil Malde
> Aren't there any usable third-party package managers for w
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 14:54 +0200, Ketil Malde wrote:
> > You have a point, though, and I wouldn't mind at all cabal-install
> > being integrated into portage,
>
> I'm not too familiar with portage, but I think a better solution is to
> provide tools to automatically generate packages for the va
Achim Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Caveat: I have only a vague grasp on what exactly is being criticized
here - using a modern Linux distribution, tons of packages are
available, and almost all issues Claus point out seem to be taken care
of - at least as far as I can see.
> Well, then t
11 matches
Mail list logo
