Thu, 8 May 2003 13:27:07 +0100
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 08:36:01AM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
> * "Brent A. Fulgham" <email@example.com> [2003-05-07T22:54-0700]:
> > On Wednesday 07 May 2003 10:00 am, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > > Then, when a new library is installed it would be rebuilt for any
> > > implementations installed and registered, and when GHC is upgraded
> > > it would rebuild all the libraries installed and registered. This
> > > nicely solves the problem of changing binary formats. The only
> > > subtlety I can see is making sure things get built in the right
> > > order when installing multiple packages at once.
> > This sounds a lot like the Common Lisp compiler system.
> This sounds a lot like what I proposed aeons ago on one of the ghc
> mailing lists - I think. It's long ago and I don't have a reference
> handy now, sorry. It got shot down for some technical reasons, or
> complexity or so, IIRC. SimonM might remember.
It is slightly more complex than other approaches, but I think it is
significantly nicer from the sysadmin and user's point of view.
> BTW: Brent, Ian - maybe something along the lines of what Debian does
> with kernel module packages?
For the the benefit of those not in the know, this would mean installing
a library package would put the source in /source/path/mylibrary. The
sysadmin would then have to come along and do
"make-library ghc mylibrary" which would create mylibrary.deb which he
would then install. When he upgraded GHC he would have to repeat the
process (as any library debs would have to depend on the exact version
of GHC for binary compatibility reasons) (although probably a single
command to build all the debs) and similarly when he installed nhc98.
This makes a lot more work for the sysadmin. I much prefer what I
Oh, one thing that would be nice is to have conflicts on implementation
versions, so you can say "Conflicts: ghc < 5.04, hugs".