new Library Infrastructure spec.

[Isaac Jones]

"S. Alexander Jacobson" <haskell at alexjacobson.com> writes:

> 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'
(snip)
> 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!

This is not true in the least.  It does _not_ require Rowland as an
intermediary.

Given that section 1.2 explains that Angela will distribute her code
as a source package, I don't know why you believe this.  Perhaps my
previous email will clarify that.

(snip)

> The priority should be in dealing with code created by Angela.

This is not the case.  This must be a fundamental misunderstanding,
and I hope that you will have a little more faith once this is
clarified.

> She should not need Peter to deliver a package to PNW/Wally.

She doesn't need Peter/Rowland, but the consumer of Peter's packages
(PNW) may prefer to use packages (I know I do!) so we are happy to
support this need.  Note that such packages are distinct from generic
binary distributions.

> The current proposal does not serve that need at all!

I assert that it does.

> PS Perhaps it makes sense to convene live in (IRC)
> somewhere to discuss....

Sure!  Maybe we can get some of the confusion cleared up and you can
make some concrete suggestions for the document.  I hang out on
#haskell on irc.freenode.net.  I'm SyntaxNinja or SyntaxLaptop.


peace,

  isaac