Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage

Max Rabkin wrote:

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

AFAIU the plan is to separate GHC and its "platform packages", so in the future it might not be that easy to get to the point where you _can_ run 'cabal install'.

Absolutely not. The point of HP is to make the path from bare OS to complete Haskell installation including cabal-install consist of a single step: 1. Install Haskell Platform

Yes, indeed, if there exists a pre-compiled, binary version of HP for your platform. Also, note that you _didn't_ say that the goal of HP is to limit the pain of installing bindings to C libraries.

...

This is a good point, but to some extent this brings us back to a discussion that's specific to systems with broken or non-existing package managers. Wouldn't it be better to deal with _that_ outside of HP?

AIUI, on systems with working package managers, HP will be a metapackage which depends on the appropriate "real" packages.

Yes, but again, the role of HP shouldn't be to limit the pain of installing bindings to C libraries. What I'm saying is that it's a worthwhile goal to limit that pain, but it should be handled outside of HP. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe