On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Isaac Jones wrote:
Here are some more issues you're scheme will have to deal with:
1) Marcus Makefile. He's important to us; he's a hard-core haskell developer and we want to support him. How does he go about calling through to the "make install" command?
I thought this proposal was an alternative to "make install." Are people doing things with makefiles that can't be done using StaticSetup? If they are, do these things involve multiple compilers/interpreters that may or may not be installed together on a given machine? If yes, then perhaps they are better served with a more generic install functionality that interacts with Haskell via the more restricted StaticSetup.
2) If you allow executables to be installed, you'll have to watch out for attacks which replace "ls" or something. I guess you could have a warning for any package which tries to overwrite an existing file, though this may happen a lot for upgrading a current library.
But typically it would happen all within the same directory so there it should be possible to offer the user the option to accept all updates to a particular directory. Simply telling the user in which directories updates may be happening is a big plus.
3) There is some grey area between the Angela and Marcus use cases where she can perform extra preprocessing steps and configuration steps within the context of Setup.lhs (since she has all of Haskell at her disposal.) In your scheme, there is no space between Angela and Marcus. You're either in or out when it comes to utilizing Distribution.Simple.
I'm not sure I follow here. Nothing stops you from chaining/recursive StaticSetup... -Alex- _________________________________________________________________ S. Alexander Jacobson mailto:me@alexjacobson.com tel:917-770-6565 http://alexjacobson.com