Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage
duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Thu Aug 6 08:02:06 EDT 2009
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 14:21 +0200, Axel Simon wrote:
> Hi Simon et al.,
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 13:57, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
> > Simon Marlow wrote:
> >> By bringing gtk2hs into the platform, we would be giving the gtk2hs
> >> maintainers a helpful boost; they'd get more testing for one thing.
> > I think that should explicitly not be a reason to bring things into
> > the
> > platform.
> Bringing Gtk2Hs into the platform is certainly desirable. During the
> last one or two years, the amount of users has grown steadily which
> is nice. However, Pete and my time is rather limited and is often
> being used up by installation issues and questions that could be
> answered with better documentation. Thus, it would be desirable to
> bring Gtk2Hs into the platform because it would force us to simplify
> installation and documentation.
> For the former part, I wonder if cabalization is important for
> Gtk2Hs. A cabalized version of Gtk2Hs would allow people to use Cairo
> and Pango to create PDF documents without the need to install the GUI
> parts of the library. On the contrary, if Gtk2Hs is shipped with the
> platform, then all libraries are available anyway and cabalization
> might not be as important.
> My question: how important is cabalization for a package that wants
> to be part of the platform?
Speaking with my distribution and HP release team hats on I think it is
essential. We cannot sensibly write automation tools for packages that
are not cabalised. I fully expect it to become a required criteria for
More information about the Libraries