On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 02:51:33PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 09:55:32AM -0700, David Roundy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 09:22:56PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
We settled on a fairly traditional model, where one specifies the names and versions of packages of Haskell code.
Do you actually have any precedent for such a system?
I know there is a long history of the autoconf-style approach being successful. Can you point to any success stories of the approach chosen for cabal?
LaTeX does things like \RequirePackage{longtable}[1995/01/01]
I wouldn't call LaTeX a build system, although it's certainly a wonderful typesetting system.
According to http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/PythonEggs, with python eggs you do things like from pkg_resources import require require("FooBar>=1.2")
From what I can tell, python eggs aren't a build system either, but rather a binary package format.
According to http://blogs.cocoondev.org/crafterm/archives/004653.html, with Ruby gems you do things like s.add_dependency("dependency", ">= 0.x.x")
It seems that a ruby gem is also a binary package.
(URLs found by googling for "how to make a <foo>")
Those were just the first 3 things I thought of. I don't know what you would consider a success, though.
I'd definitely call LaTeX a success, have no idea about gems or eggs (which I'd never heard of before this email), but none of these are build systems, so far as I can tell. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University