Re: [Haskell-cafe] Cabal pre-compiled packages
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Diego Souza wrote: Hi, currently when one install a cabal package it compiles it and then install generated binaries. I wonder whether or not it would be useful to have pre-compiled binaries as many package managers usually do (e.g. apt). I often think that would save some time on the expense of a busier hackage server capable of generating packages for many different platforms. There is cabal-rpm http://hackage.haskell.org/package/cabal-rpm ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Cabal pre-compiled packages
On 28 February 2010 01:55, Diego Souza dso...@bitforest.org wrote: currently when one install a cabal package it compiles it and then install generated binaries. I wonder whether or not it would be useful to have pre-compiled binaries as many package managers usually do (e.g. apt). I often think that would save some time on the expense of a busier hackage server capable of generating packages for many different platforms. I'm particularly thinking on the following scenario: suppose that you have code that is ready for production. If cabal supported pre-compiled binaries, there is no need to install ghc or eventually any other compiler, just runtime environment and eventually cabal. I must say that I have no experience in doing this in Haskell (just personal/small projects), so I suppose one have to generate binaries and use other sort of package manager to deploy code to production (which sounds reasonable as well). Thus, if the assumption is correct, cabal is a development tool, not something one could to only deploy runtime-only packages. So, you need a binary for each version of GHC available (IIRC, Duncan is still testing new releases of Cabal for versions of GHC as old as 6.4) with and without profiling, with different possible optimization flags and for different architectures and operating systems... To me, that sounds like too much work. /me really wishes people stopped thinking of Cabal as a package manager -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Cabal pre-compiled packages
Am Sonntag 28 Februar 2010 23:20:00 schrieb Ivan Miljenovic: /me really wishes people stopped thinking of Cabal as a package manager /me really wishes there were package managers as useful and easy as Cabal for things other than Haskell :D ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[Haskell-cafe] Cabal pre-compiled packages
Hi, currently when one install a cabal package it compiles it and then install generated binaries. I wonder whether or not it would be useful to have pre-compiled binaries as many package managers usually do (e.g. apt). I often think that would save some time on the expense of a busier hackage server capable of generating packages for many different platforms. I'm particularly thinking on the following scenario: suppose that you have code that is ready for production. If cabal supported pre-compiled binaries, there is no need to install ghc or eventually any other compiler, just runtime environment and eventually cabal. I must say that I have no experience in doing this in Haskell (just personal/small projects), so I suppose one have to generate binaries and use other sort of package manager to deploy code to production (which sounds reasonable as well). Thus, if the assumption is correct, cabal is a development tool, not something one could to only deploy runtime-only packages. I also would appreciate if others could share how usually this is managed. Best Regards, ~dsouza ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Cabal pre-compiled packages
Diego Souza wrote: Hi, currently when one install a cabal package it compiles it and then install generated binaries. I wonder whether or not it would be useful to have pre-compiled binaries as many package managers usually do (e.g. apt). I often think that would save some time on the expense of a busier hackage server capable of generating packages for many different platforms. I'm particularly thinking on the following scenario: suppose that you have code that is ready for production. If cabal supported pre-compiled binaries, there is no need to install ghc or eventually any other compiler, just runtime environment and eventually cabal. I must say that I have no experience in doing this in Haskell (just personal/small projects), so I suppose one have to generate binaries and use other sort of package manager to deploy code to production (which sounds reasonable as well). Thus, if the assumption is correct, cabal is a development tool, not something one could to only deploy runtime-only packages. I also would appreciate if others could share how usually this is managed. As far as I know, Cabal is mainly used for deploying Haskell libraries. If you want to deploy a finished Haskell program, just compile it into an executable program and make it downloadable from somewhere. (Much like a C program or any other kind of program.) For example, if you hunt around, you can find Darcs available as a binary download (even for Windows). It might be nice if certain Haskell libraries were available in binary form. The trouble is, Haskell libraries have to be recompiled for each version of the compiler. This is why it's usually released in source form; otherwise you have to make a bazillion different binaries, one for every version of GHC on every platform that GHC runs on. Much easier to just compile from source, Unix-style. (And I've only come across one Haskell package that takes more than 11 seconds to compile anyway.) ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Cabal pre-compiled packages
Am Samstag 27 Februar 2010 16:39:27 schrieb Andrew Coppin: Diego Souza wrote: Hi, currently when one install a cabal package it compiles it and then install generated binaries. I wonder whether or not it would be useful to have pre-compiled binaries as many package managers usually do (e.g. apt). I often think that would save some time on the expense of a busier hackage server capable of generating packages for many different platforms. I'm particularly thinking on the following scenario: suppose that you have code that is ready for production. If cabal supported pre-compiled binaries, there is no need to install ghc or eventually any other compiler, just runtime environment and eventually cabal. I must say that I have no experience in doing this in Haskell (just personal/small projects), so I suppose one have to generate binaries and use other sort of package manager to deploy code to production (which sounds reasonable as well). Thus, if the assumption is correct, cabal is a development tool, not something one could to only deploy runtime-only packages. I also would appreciate if others could share how usually this is managed. As far as I know, Cabal is mainly used for deploying Haskell libraries. Yes, Cabal: Common Architecture for Building Applications and Libraries If you want to deploy a finished Haskell program, just compile it into an executable program and make it downloadable from somewhere. (Much And since the binary doesn't need to be built anymore, you don't need Cabal or cabal for that. Of course, a central repo for binaries might be a good thing. like a C program or any other kind of program.) For example, if you hunt around, you can find Darcs available as a binary download (even for Windows). Actually, I think you'll find more binaries for Windows than for *n*x, since commi ( ./configure make make install) is so simple. It might be nice if certain Haskell libraries were available in binary form. The trouble is, Haskell libraries have to be recompiled for each version of the compiler. This is why it's usually released in source form; otherwise you have to make a bazillion different binaries, one for every version of GHC on every platform that GHC runs on. That, and it's so much better to have the source around. Need a small modification of/addition to a library? Unpack, edit, bump version, build, install, offer patch to maintainer. How would you go about it if you only had the binary? Much easier to just compile from source, Unix-style. (And I've only come across one Haskell package that takes more than 11 seconds to compile anyway.) So you've tried at most one of the GUI libraries, HPDF or highlighting- kate? ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
