new Library Infrastructure spec.
S. Alexander Jacobson
haskell at alexjacobson.com
Mon Jun 14 15:07:34 EDT 2004
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Simon Marlow wrote:
> 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'
Ok, I'll simplify. There are only two kinds of
packages; those that include platform specific
binaries and those that don't.
In the case of the former, I don't see what value
the proposal provides over autoconf/make for the
person operating the compiler (Peter Packager) or
over RPM MSI etc for the person installing the
In the case of the later, the proposal is severely
deficient in requiring Roland to intermediate even
in the case of code created by Angela!
> However, I don't consider (2) to be a priority.
You're right, it should be subsumed in the
more general case of packages with platform
> (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').
How is this superior to "./configure;make;make
The priority should be in dealing with code
created by Angela. She should not need Peter to
deliver a package to PNW/Wally. The current
proposal does not serve that need at all!
PS Perhaps it makes sense to convene live in (IRC)
somewhere to discuss....
S. Alexander Jacobson mailto:me at alexjacobson.com
More information about the Libraries