RE: Extending the dependency syntax
On 28 July 2005 22:48, Duncan Coutts wrote:
My own personal opinion is that cabal/haskell packaging can be made the most sucessful if we take advantage of the native packaging systems and so make it possible to automate as much as possible the process of wrapping a cabal package into a native package. I think we will reach the greatest audience by this approach.
I'd just like to add a big +1 to this comment - that was always my feeling when we were originally thinking about Cabal, but you're right that making the link between Cabal and native package tools hasn't received enough attention yet. Cheers, Simon
"Simon Marlow"
On 28 July 2005 22:48, Duncan Coutts wrote:
My own personal opinion is that cabal/haskell packaging can be made the most sucessful if we take advantage of the native packaging systems and so make it possible to automate as much as possible the process of wrapping a cabal package into a native package. I think we will reach the greatest audience by this approach.
I'd just like to add a big +1 to this comment - that was always my feeling when we were originally thinking about Cabal,
I also agree. Supporting OS packagers was my main reason for starting the project.
but you're right that making the link between Cabal and native package tools hasn't received enough attention yet.
I disagree with that statement, though. There are already cabal-related tools for debian, fedora, and gentoo, and I've worked closely with each of the implementors of those tools. peace, isaac
participants (2)
-
Isaac Jones -
Simon Marlow