Hello, I have uploaded the ghc package to my ppa: https://launchpad.net/~someone561/+archive/ppa But I don't work on it. I simple backport the debian sid packages. Also there are not the haskell libraries as debs. Maybe this helps you. Stefan Rafael Gustavo da Cunha Pereira Pinto wrote:

Thanks. I may even be the one to step up, if nothing happens till 9.10... I really miss up-to-date ghc in Ubuntu.

2009/7/6 Don Stewart mailto:dons@galois.com>

RafaelGCPP.Linux: > > Is there anyone working on a Haskell Platform package for Ubuntu? > > GHC in Ubuntu is a pain!

The Debian team is working on packaging, but until then (or if someone on Ubuntu steps up), you'll need to use the Unix tarball:

http://hackage.haskell.org/platform/2009.2.0.1/haskell-platform-2009.2.0.1.t...

-- Don

Karmic (9.10) will have GHC 6.10.3, possibly 6.10.4.

It currently spots 6.10.3, in the alpha release I run here.

Even if 6.10.3 gets into Karmic, I'm sure the problem will arise again once 6.12.1 is out. It's sadly easier to install from the tarball. David.

The Ocaml programming language has exactly the same problem, but the Debian Ocaml maintainers have automated the process and last time to Ocaml compiler version was updated over 95% of all Ocaml libraries were rebuilt within 24 hours.

Since I never built GHC from scratch, it is really hard for me to estimate how much effort would I have to put through to automate the whole building process. Anyway, automating the package building process is crucial for Linux distributions. One problem I see is the binary-only distribution of packages. This makes cabal-install incompatible with most distributions except, maybe, gentoo. The automation process would have to run through hackageDB tracking dependencies and compiling each needed library. Pretty hard stuff... Rafael Gustavo da Cunha Pereira Pinto

2009/7/8 Matthias Görgens :

...

One problem I see is the binary-only distribution of packages. This makes cabal-install incompatible with most distributions except, maybe, gentoo. The automation process would have to run through hackageDB tracking dependencies and compiling each needed library. Pretty hard stuff...

Yes.  The sanest approach for any distribution would seem to install are bare bones ghc + cabal (cabal install) and let the cabal package system do the hard work directly.

That wouldn't work, as cabal dependancies don't allow downloading the appropriate C libraries from the distribution repositories when needed.

Matthias Görgens wrote:

Yes. The sanest approach for any distribution would seem to install are bare bones ghc + cabal (cabal install) and let the cabal package system do the hard work directly.

Cabal works really well for a single developer on a single machine. Debian packages work really well where there are multiple developers on multiple machines and auto-build bots where you want all of these to be using the exact same binary package. The reason I am pursuing the Debian way is because I find the second option far more useful. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/

mle+hs:

Matthias Görgens wrote:

...

Yes. The sanest approach for any distribution would seem to install are bare bones ghc + cabal (cabal install) and let the cabal package system do the hard work directly.

Cabal works really well for a single developer on a single machine.

Debian packages work really well where there are multiple developers on multiple machines and auto-build bots where you want all of these to be using the exact same binary package.

The reason I am pursuing the Debian way is because I find the second option far more useful.

And distro packages are much easier for new users (who can later graduate to the cabal-install cabal). -- Don

Hi Erik, Am Mittwoch, den 08.07.2009, 17:15 +1000 schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:

The Ocaml programming language has exactly the same problem, but the Debian Ocaml maintainers have automated the process and last time to Ocaml compiler version was updated over 95% of all Ocaml libraries were rebuilt within 24 hours.

looking at http://debian.glondu.net/monitor/ocaml/ocaml_transition_monitor.html I get the impression that the Ocaml guys need to re-build everything when a new Ocaml library comes out, but not when just a dependency was upgraded. Is that right? If it is so, we have an excuse due to our slightly more complicated procedure. Also, how do they get it in 24 – don’t they have to wait, for each level in the dependency tree, for the former level to have been built on a buildd, upload signed by a buildd admin and them moved to the archive with the next mirror push? Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

mle+hs:

Joachim Breitner wrote:

...

looking at http://debian.glondu.net/monitor/ocaml/ocaml_transition_monitor.html I get the impression that the Ocaml guys need to re-build everything when a new Ocaml library

I assume you mean compiler there?

...

comes out, but not when just a dependency was upgraded. Is that right?

I'm not really sure about that.

Ocaml libraries seem (warning, generalizations follow) seem to be fewer in number that Haskell but be more comprehensive. Haskell has far more small libraries and as a result, Haskell projects often have much deeper and wider dependency trees than similar Ocaml projects.

The difference is cabal-install: automated dependency resolving makes for more packages.

...

If it is so, we have an excuse due to our slightly more complicated procedure.

Yes, I agree that the Haskell problem is a more difficult example of the same problems the Ocaml maintainers face. There may also be parts which the Ocaml maintainers don't have to face at all, but in general, the Haskell problem is similar to the Ocaml one.

...

Also, how do they get it in 24 – don’t they have to wait, for each level in the dependency tree, for the former level to have been built on a buildd, upload signed by a buildd admin and them moved to the archive with the next mirror push?

Also, the Haskell libs are updating more frequently (more of them, and more updates). We're averaging 10 updates a day atm: http://www.galois.com/~dons/images/hackage-daily-graph.png -- Don

Ketil Malde wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't follow you. Surely the libraries must be compiled against the shipping version of GHC?

Yes, but the libraries that are currently there are the ones compiled with the previous version of ghc. Yes, those libraries need to be recompiled and no, that process has not yet been properly automated. Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/

Simon Marlow wrote:

Karmic (9.10) will have GHC 6.10.3, possibly 6.10.4.

http://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ghc6/+bug/302149

Unfortunately thats only half the story. The GHC 6.10.3 that is going into Kamic is the one from Debian Unstable. It is important to note here that beyond doing a rebuild of the Debian source package against Ubuntu's binary versions of all the libraries, Ubuntu/Cannonical does no extra work to make Haskell (or anything else outside the Ubuntu core packages) work on Ubuntu. It should also be noted that although ghc-6.10.3 works, a huge bunch of Haskell libraries still need to be build with the new compiler for them to be useful. Since Debian is still working on getting this process sorted out, there is little reason to believe that Ubuntu is going to be any better at getting this fixed. If anyone is interested in seeing improved Haskell support in Ubuntu, they should be looking towards the Debian Haskell maintainers, not Ubuntu :-). Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

...

GHC in Ubuntu is a pain!

The same is also currently true for GHC on Debian stable and testing. Debian unstable is also a bit broken.

I only use Debian Stable, but I don't find it very hard to use. I just use the binary packages from www.haskell.org. That said, there has been a lot of activity on the debian-haskell mailing list lately (debian-haskell@lists.debian.org) so there will probably some progress quite soon! (Not sure if it will be in time for Ubuntu 9.10 though). Cheers, -- Jochem Berndsen | jochem@functor.nl GPG: 0xE6FABFAB