On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Isaac Jones wrote:
Does "software" include an IDE written in C, Python, or Java? No. Software includes Haskell libraries and other tools writen in Haskell.
The Haskell Library Infrastructure Project is an effort to provide a framework that makes it easy for Haskell developers to package *haskell libraries* for easy installation into any Haskell development environment.
I don't think we should restrict it to Haskell libraries only. I still don't see any real gain in doing so.
I don't see any real gain in restricting it only to libraries and tools written in Haskell. Given the flexibility you are trying to achieve (compilation of arbitrary source, random mucking around in the local environment, calling autoconf!), it certainly *looks* like we are really talking about another generic config tool, this time written and scripted in Haskell? Note: It might be perfectly reasonable to write such a tool to supercede autoconf, just as it was totally reasonable to write Darc to supercede CVS. (Though perhaps the community should start thinking about eating the dogfood). Aside: A Haskell tool that calls autoconf will eventually evolve into a Haskell tool that replaces autoconf. The flip side of teh above is that I do see a substantial gain in having a really simple tool focused exclusively on installing Haskell libraries together with their associated data and binaries into a Haskell development environment such that they may be easily used from new Haskell programs. This gain may include perhaps: * an easy way to install Haskell code from autoconf * a standard way to access a Haskell interpreter/compiler * a safe way to install/run foreign code * a much smaller overall project to implement * etc.. Perhaps it would be helpful if we walk throug some scenarios: Case 1: Suppose I write a package that makes it easy to call back and forth between Python and Haskell using some code written in C. The installer needs to compile some C libraries to be called by Python wrapper code and some C libraries to be called by Haskell wrapper code. This C code is generated by code written in Python and Haskell. Should the outer layer be autoconf, distutils, or HPS? Case 2: Suppose I write a relational database library that stays outside the IO Monad. Its just a a few Haskell files that need to be installed in the Data directory? What is the simplest thing that I can do to package this code? The full flexibility of setup.lhs seems like overkill in this case. Case 3: Suppose I write a http server that library that relies on a mime-types file.... My gut is that the data file in this case should be part of the documentation... Note: I find the runhugs requirement in the current document frustrating. I feel like there should be a command in the local installation like hugs -install <setupscript> and ghc -install <setupscript> etc. -Alex- _________________________________________________________________ S. Alexander Jacobson mailto:me@alexjacobson.com tel:917-770-6565 http://alexjacobson.com