packaging options for Mac OS X
Manuel M T Chakravarty
chak at cse.unsw.edu.au
Mon Nov 29 03:29:10 CET 2010
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:56:00PM -0800, Mark Lentczner wrote:
>> Outstanding question is what should this framework be called? I would like to continue to call it GHC.framework, but change the version to something like 7.0.1+HP-i386,
> I think it ought to be called Haskell-Platform.framework.
The GHC.framework inside the Haskell Platform should still be the GHC.framework. The rest of the Haskell Platform might be in a different framework (or further, more specific frameworks identifying the individual components inside). A Mac OS X framework is *not* a unit of distribution. It is more like a library with associated meta data and tools. You wouldn't rename glibc to, say, ubuntulibc just because you happen to get it via an Ubuntu install.
>> [*] The binary GHC distribution could be
>> - built by the GHC team, and asking them for a tarball (as Duncan suggested)
> I do "make framework-pkg" to build the OS X installer, but it's
> essentially a black box to me. We're happy to accept patches that make
> this also produce a bindist, though.
> Now that we have the Haskell Platform, perhaps we should stop making GHC
> OS X installers, and only make plain old unix bindists.
Especially given that the Haskell Platform is released many months after GHC, please keep making GHC OS X installers. At the very least, that will lead to more GHC installs and *testing* on OS X between the GHC release and Haskell Platform release.
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users