packaging options for Mac OS X

Manuel M T Chakravarty chak at
Mon Nov 29 03:29:10 CET 2010

Ian Lynagh:
> 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 mailing list