[Haskell-cafe] Poll: Do you need to be able to build darcs from source on GHC 6.6?

[Trent W. Buck]

David Roundy <droundy at darcs.net> writes:

> And as far as bundled versions, it's the desire to *remove* a bundled
> version that's apparently at issue.  I'm not sure why this is
> considered desirable, but apparently some folks feel strongly about
> this.

Could someone please summarize what code is currently bundled with darcs
that isn't darcs?  I had the impression that most of it was "in house"
code that had/has not been formalized into a separate libraries yet
(e.g. an FFI for zlib, byte strings before they were librarified).

To me, that's different from a bundled (convenience) copy, which is
where you basically download libfoo's tarball, unpack it in your source
tree, and then do "darcs rec -lam 'Install copy of libfoo 5.1'".