[Haskell-cafe] Re: ANNOUNCE: Utrecht Haskell Compiler (UHC) --
barsoap at web.de
Tue Apr 21 07:36:40 EDT 2009
"Richard O'Keefe" <ok at cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote:
> Some of the right questions are
> - how many potential <whatever> users would need to have
> <whatever> installed on _some_ machine they do NOT have
> administrator access to?
> - if people find Mac and Windows installers that show you where
> something is going to be put and offer you the chance to change
> it acceptable, why exactly would that be unacceptable under
> Linux or Solaris?
It's perfectly acceptable, even required, but, for the love of UNIX,
take that path as a parameter, don't do a GUI. If you want a GUI, write
it in terms of that script.
> - since we know install-anywhere binary releases are possible,
> and since we know that an installer _can_ probe to see whether
> installation in /usr/local (or any other "standard" place) is
> possible, why not do it?
I really, really don't like the idea of a program behaving differently
based on the permissions it has, short of failing to do what I told it
OTOH, quickly checking whether the user has write permissions to / and
failing with "you need root right to do that, did you mean to call this
script with --user?" instead of failing with access denied errors is a
Echoing "binaries were installed in $HOME/.cabal/bin", and checking the
user's $PATH and displaying a warning if that directory isn't in it is
a Good Thing, too. I guess it's also the main problem those not
literate in UNIX have with cabal.
 Does install --user check whether configure was called with --user,
too? I hope so...
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers
for copyright history. All rights reserved. Copying, hiring, renting,
performance and/or quoting of this signature prohibited.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe