new Library Infrastructure spec.

Simon Marlow simonmar at
Wed Jun 16 04:55:02 EDT 2004

On 15 June 2004 16:53, Sven Panne wrote:

> Simon Marlow wrote:
>> This was a conscious decision - making install-location-neutral
>> binary distributions is hard in general, and not always possible. 
>> GHC goes to some lengths to support it.  Most other packaging
>> systems do *not* support this (eg. neither RPM nor BSD ports do).
>> [...] 
> I don't know about BSD ports, but RPM definitely supports relocatable
> packages, see e.g.:
> The problem is that most .spec writers (including me :-) don't take
> the trouble to make a package relocatable. I'm quite sure that we
> could e.g. make all our fptools stuff (ghc, alex, happy, ...)
> relocatable, but at least for me this has not a high priority. I'd be
> happy if somebody takes the time, though... :-)

Ok, I should have been clearer: I meant that these package systems do
not guarantee to produce location-independent packages.  They can do,
with some help from the packager, but that isn't a requirement, and the
user cannot rely on an arbitrary package being relocatable at install

We have so far taken the view in Cabal that since it imposes too much of
a burden on the packager and author to produce location-independent
packages, that we shouldn't support it at all.  However, I could
possibly be convinced that we should allow it as an option, on a
per-package basis, though.


More information about the Libraries mailing list