new Library Infrastructure spec.

S. Alexander Jacobson haskell at
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
package (Wally/PNW).

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

More information about the Libraries mailing list