On 09 June 2004 20:29, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
The proposal should simply define the file format that Angela and Peter use to deliver Haskell packages to Wally. A Haskell package is some combiation of:
* Haskell source * binary libs for the target platform, * documentation, * data, * and meta-data
I don't think you're suggesting anything that isn't already covered by the proposal. Others have already responded to that effect, but I'll reiterate: there are several kinds of binary package which the end user can install. These include: 1. Platform-native packages: RPM, Debian, Windows MSI, etc. 2. Generic binary distribution, generated by './Setup.lhs bdist' I believe what you're asking for is (2). These binary distributions can be installed by anyone with a Haskell compiler on their system, by unpacking the distribution and invoking './Setup install'. However, I don't consider (2) to be a priority. Funcionality-wise, binary distributions are less desirable than platform-native packages, because they don't deal with installing dependencies and they don't let you uninstall the package later. When installing software, it is good practice to co-operate with the system's native packaging system. (2) is useful on systems that don't have a native packaging system, e.g. Solaris. However, on those systems, Joe User can usually just become Bob and install packages from source (it's not hard; just do './Setup.lhs configure; ./Setup.lhs build; ./Setup.lhs install'). Cheers, Simon