Re: [darcs-users] [Haskell-cafe] Poll: Do you need to be able to build darcs from source on GHC 6.6?

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:16:17PM +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote:

David Roundy writes:

...

And as far as bundled versions, it's the desire to *remove* a bundled version that's apparently at issue. I'm not sure why this is considered desirable, but apparently some folks feel strongly about this.

Could someone please summarize what code is currently bundled with darcs that isn't darcs? I had the impression that most of it was "in house" code that had/has not been formalized into a separate libraries yet (e.g. an FFI for zlib, byte strings before they were librarified).

Yes, that's what I was referring to. The bytestring library is a descendant of the FastPackedString module that is still in darcs. Recently Ganesh added the ability for darcs to use bytestring instead if its own code, and dons has submitted code to remove FastPackedString in favor of bytestring.

To me, that's different from a bundled (convenience) copy, which is where you basically download libfoo's tarball, unpack it in your source tree, and then do "darcs rec -lam 'Install copy of libfoo 5.1'".

Yes, I agree. But continuing to keep our own code has the same sorts of benefits that bundling other libraries has (without the legal hassle). -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net