On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Simon Marlow wrote:
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'
Ok, I'll simplify. There are only two kinds of packages; those that include platform specific binaries and those that don't. In the case of the former, I don't see what value the proposal provides over autoconf/make for the person operating the compiler (Peter Packager) or over RPM MSI etc for the person installing the package (Wally/PNW). In the case of the later, the proposal is severely deficient in requiring Roland to intermediate even in the case of code created by Angela!
However, I don't consider (2) to be a priority.
You're right, it should be subsumed in the more general case of packages with platform
(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').
How is this superior to "./configure;make;make install"? The priority should be in dealing with code created by Angela. She should not need Peter to deliver a package to PNW/Wally. The current proposal does not serve that need at all! -Alex- PS Perhaps it makes sense to convene live in (IRC) somewhere to discuss.... _________________________________________________________________ S. Alexander Jacobson mailto:me@alexjacobson.com tel:917-770-6565 http://alexjacobson.com