On Aug 7, 2009, at 10:58, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 06/08/2009 12:59, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 12:02 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
On 04/08/2009 00:59, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:44:32PM -0700, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
How would you identify the top, say, 5 libs to add?
I would not look for libs to add. I would wait for people to come and tell me that they think that particular libs are worthy of addition, and then decide whether or not I agree.
Ok, to kick things off then, I propose the following:
Add
* binary * getopt * gtk2hs
Now that's just crazy-talk! :-)
What/where is getopt? It's not on hackage. Elsewhere we've raised our concerns about binary. gtk2hs is of course not cabalised.
[..]
What is stopping gtk2hs being cabalised at this stage? Is it just work, or does it need extensions to Cabal?
I'm no Cabal expert, so Duncan might know more. What Gtk2Hs needs is the ability to depend on executables (tools like a modified c2hs) that are built by other Cabal packages. Furthermore, we need to generate .hs files using these tools. I don't know how difficult it is to use Cabal to generate the dependencies and invoke the right tools. For instance, a file like .chs.pp is translated to .chs using CPP or hscpp, then to .hs and .chi using our own c2hs and then it is compiled using ghc. Finally, it seems that we need file-specific options in order to compile certain files. I think Cabal has no mechanism for that. I'm sure it's all doable so it probably boils down to a lack of time :-) Cheers, Axel.