On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Isaac Jones wrote:
Isaac Jones has coordinated an effort to address this problem. We've had a lot of discussion between him and (at least some of) the folk involved in the GHC, Hugs, and nhc implementations. This discussion has led to a new concrete proposed specification[1]. Here it is: http://www.haskell.org/libraryInfrastructure/proposal
2.5 Setup script: "In principle, the Setup script could be written in any language; so why do we use Haskell?" I agree with the reasons given as answers, I would also like to use Haskell for scripting tasks in the future. E.g. for some years now we are trying to use 'make' for some comfortable use of LaTeX, but LaTeX with all its temporary files and necessary recompilations is a bit too complicated for 'make'. 4.1 Package description: "The exact syntax is still undecided." What's about using real Haskell code as package description? The package file could contain a function that builds a certain data structure. This would save you from designing a new syntax and would prevent the user from learning a new description language.