[Haskell] Re: Trying to install binary-0.4

[Bjorn Bringert]

On Oct 13, 2007, at 20:35 , Udo Stenzel wrote:

> Simon Marlow wrote:
>>> - Refrain from renaming stuff.  System.Posix is a fine name.
>>
>> Who renamed it?  It's still called System.Posix AFAIK.
>
> tar references System.PosixCompat, which apparently comes from a  
> library
> called unix-compat.  I have no idea why the lib isn't just called unix
> and the modules not System.Posix.*, for tar works fine with
> System.Posix.*.

The tar package uses System.PosixCompat from the unix-compat package  
to also work under non-posix systems (read Windows). This dependency  
is listed in the tar.cabal file (see http://hackage.haskell.org/ 
packages/archive/tar/0.1/tar.cabal). System.Posix was never renamed.

>> The main problem you seem to be running into is that base previously
>> contained bytestring, but you need to upgrade bytestring in order  
>> to use
>> binary, right?
>
> Actually I'm more annoyed by the many small and unneccessary stumbling
> blocks right now.  I mean, you could easily put an instruction into  
> the
> INSTALL file that says "if you're on GHC 6.4 or 6.6, register this
> replacement configuration for base to sanitize it".  You cannot write
> "if you're on 6.4, edit all references to System.PosixCompat,  
> unless you
> already installed unix-compat, and you absolutely need binary 0.4,
> unless you're on 6.4, where you want binary 0.3 but need to patch  
> it so
> it has instance MonadFix Get, etc. pp." there, since something like  
> that
> just pisses off your users.

Why not just install unix-compat? It is listed as a dependency after  
all.

I seem to be able to build the tar package against binary-0.3. What  
exactly is the error that you are getting?

By the way, I don't think that users of open source software have a  
right to be pissed off, or at least authors don't have an obligation  
to care about them being pissed off. What users do have is a right to  
submit patches.

That said, I agree that the constantly changing packages make it hard  
to keep dependencies up to date. I guess that this is price we pay  
for moving quickly. At some point, however, we will have to stop  
breaking things.

/Björn