new Library Infrastructure spec.

[Simon Marlow]

On 09 June 2004 20:29, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:

> The proposal should simply define the file format
> that Angela and Peter use to deliver Haskell
> packages to Wally.  A Haskell package is
> some combiation of:
> 
>    * Haskell source
>    * binary libs for the target platform,
>    * documentation,
>    * data,
>    * and meta-data

I don't think you're suggesting anything that isn't already covered by
the proposal.  Others have already responded to that effect, but I'll
reiterate: there are several kinds of binary package which the end user
can install.  These include:

 1. Platform-native packages: RPM, Debian, Windows MSI, etc.
 2. Generic binary distribution, generated by './Setup.lhs bdist'

I believe what you're asking for is (2).  These binary distributions can
be installed by anyone with a Haskell compiler on their system, by
unpacking the distribution and invoking './Setup install'.

However, I don't consider (2) to be a priority.  Funcionality-wise,
binary distributions are less desirable than platform-native packages,
because they don't deal with installing dependencies and they don't let
you uninstall the package later.  When installing software, it is good
practice to co-operate with the system's native packaging system.

(2) is useful on systems that don't have a native packaging system, e.g.
Solaris.  However, on those systems, Joe User can usually just become
Bob and install packages from source (it's not hard; just do
'./Setup.lhs configure; ./Setup.lhs build; ./Setup.lhs install').

Cheers,
	Simon