Re: RFC: include a cabal-install executable in future GHC releases
On 2014-01-22 at 10:08:02 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
Am 22.01.2014 09:57, schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
On 2014-01-21 at 20:22:48 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
I feel this blurs the roles of GHC and the Platform.
IMO, that's a weak argument, as the roles are already blurred:
GHC comes with `haddock`, `hp2ps`, and `hpc` executables which could be provided by the HP instead.
At least haddock is bound to the specific GHC version.
When I look at http://hackage.haskell.org/package/haddock, there are multiple versions, 2.12.0 and the 4 versions of 2.13.*, which are all declared to work with ghc == 7.6.*, that is, 5 haddock versions compatible with 3 released versions of GHC 7.6. So while it may be bound to a major version of the GHC API, haddock can obviously have more releases than GHC has releases (otherwise it could just carry GHC's version), and can therefore be updated.
* Herbert Valerio Riedel
On 2014-01-22 at 10:08:02 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote:
Am 22.01.2014 09:57, schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel:
On 2014-01-21 at 20:22:48 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
I feel this blurs the roles of GHC and the Platform.
IMO, that's a weak argument, as the roles are already blurred:
GHC comes with `haddock`, `hp2ps`, and `hpc` executables which could be provided by the HP instead.
At least haddock is bound to the specific GHC version.
When I look at http://hackage.haskell.org/package/haddock, there are multiple versions, 2.12.0 and the 4 versions of 2.13.*, which are all declared to work with ghc == 7.6.*, that is, 5 haddock versions compatible with 3 released versions of GHC 7.6. So while it may be bound to a major version of the GHC API, haddock can obviously have more releases than GHC has releases (otherwise it could just carry GHC's version), and can therefore be updated.
Henning could be more specific in his claim that "haddock is bound to the specific GHC version". I guess he's referring to the binary rather than source distribution's compatibility. Assuming static linking w.r.t. the ghc package, the incompatibility with a different GHC version could still arise from the fact that haddock (as any other GHC API using application, I suppose) makes use of the GHC's lib directory, although I don't know the details. If we are talking about installing haddock from source (using cabal-install), then it should be no different from installing, say, ghc-mod. Roman
participants (2)
-
Herbert Valerio Riedel -
Roman Cheplyaka