Since my last attempt to add RPM support didn't go anywhere, I'd like to
figure out what's a good way to make progress.
If I were to contribute a standalone program called cabal-rpm (just as
cabal-install is a standalone program), would that be acceptable to add
to the darcs repo?
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 04:32:36PM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Since my last attempt to add RPM support didn't go anywhere, I'd like to figure out what's a good way to make progress.
If I were to contribute a standalone program called cabal-rpm (just as cabal-install is a standalone program), would that be acceptable to add to the darcs repo?
I keep meaning to speak to Duncan about whether we can put cabal-install (and any others) into its own repo. Duncan? The current source arrangement is a little odd, and I think Simon Marlow, Duncan and I agreed that cabal-install shouldn't come with a minimal GHC (as it would pull in things like HTTP, FTP, SSL, ... libraries, either now or in the future) while a minimal GHC has to include Cabal. I'd still expect cabal-install to come with the Windows install, Linux bindists etc. Package-based distributions wouldn't need to include it with GHC as there's no bootstrapping issue. So in answer to your actual question, personally I think cabal-rpm should be in its own package. Thanks Ian
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 01:42 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 04:32:36PM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Since my last attempt to add RPM support didn't go anywhere, I'd like to figure out what's a good way to make progress.
If I were to contribute a standalone program called cabal-rpm (just as cabal-install is a standalone program), would that be acceptable to add to the darcs repo?
I keep meaning to speak to Duncan about whether we can put cabal-install (and any others) into its own repo. Duncan?
The current source arrangement is a little odd, and I think Simon Marlow, Duncan and I agreed that cabal-install shouldn't come with a minimal GHC (as it would pull in things like HTTP, FTP, SSL, ... libraries, either now or in the future) while a minimal GHC has to include Cabal.
Right, so long as when clueless people/students download ghc it has all that they need to get going with installing things from hackage then it's all ok. So if that means a slightly fatter ghc bindist that includes Cabal + cabal-install then yeah fine. As you say, distros can sort themselves out and have minimal ghc and cabal-install as separate packages. Duncan
participants (3)
-
Bryan O'Sullivan -
Duncan Coutts -
Ian Lynagh