"S. Alexander Jacobson"
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' (snip) 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!
This is not true in the least. It does _not_ require Rowland as an intermediary. Given that section 1.2 explains that Angela will distribute her code as a source package, I don't know why you believe this. Perhaps my previous email will clarify that. (snip)
The priority should be in dealing with code created by Angela.
This is not the case. This must be a fundamental misunderstanding, and I hope that you will have a little more faith once this is clarified.
She should not need Peter to deliver a package to PNW/Wally.
She doesn't need Peter/Rowland, but the consumer of Peter's packages (PNW) may prefer to use packages (I know I do!) so we are happy to support this need. Note that such packages are distinct from generic binary distributions.
The current proposal does not serve that need at all!
I assert that it does.
PS Perhaps it makes sense to convene live in (IRC) somewhere to discuss....
Sure! Maybe we can get some of the confusion cleared up and you can make some concrete suggestions for the document. I hang out on #haskell on irc.freenode.net. I'm SyntaxNinja or SyntaxLaptop. peace, isaac