Re: RFC: include a cabal-install executable in future GHC releases

Hello,
My input is this: I think a lot of confusion stems from some
documentation that just needs to be cleared up.
I think that just cleaning up the pages so that:
* http://www.haskell.org/cabal has binaries for Tier 1 platforms: OS
X, Windows, FreeBSD i386/amd64, Linux i386/amd64. IMO, there should be
a clear 'Download pre-built binaries' on the immediate front page that
cannot be missed.
* http://www.haskell.org/ghc/download still points to the platform
for most users (i.e. the platform is more long-term stable/supported,)
but also mentions cabal install binaries. They can be linked to
directly from the subsection for each platform: "Download GHC 7.8.1
Mac OS X x86-64 - also download <latest cabal-install OS X build> from
here"
I personally think this would go a significant way to making it easier
for people to bootstrap environments. (IMO, both the GHC and Cabal
homepage could both do with a visual makeover as well, to make this
all the more apparent and easily accessible.)
As for cabal install binaries: I can easily provide dedicated hardware
(thanks to Rackspace) for Windows, FreeBSD or Linux build machines. I
also have a dedicated OS X machine in Oxford (thanks to Duncan) that
can be used to build binaries for OS X as well. So I can absolutely
provide resources for Cabal developers to build them if they'd like.
At least for T1 platforms.
As for shipping with GHC itself: this is technically possible, but
slightly annoying to implement, and it also makes the build processes
for a release slightly more annoying (which is mostly my problem.) But
it is all doable. However, keep in mind I *do not* maintain the binary
distributions for everything, nor do Cabal devs have access to all
hardware - so all people making upstream releases for their platforms
(i.e. Solaris, PowerPC, ARM/Linux, etc) must also package cabal
themselves. But perhaps that's not a huge deal.
I guess my vote on this is ultimately neutral. I think it can be fixed
by simply making the downloads more clear. Alternatively we can
package cabal-install. I'll leave the decision up to users at large
and their votes.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Daniil Frumin
cabal-install doesn't even have to be distributed in one tar.gz with GHC, just merely mentioning cabal-install binaries on http://www.haskell.org/ghc/download will surely help (assuming we get to actually have the cabal-install binaries :)
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Gábor Lehel
wrote: +1 to this proposal. The benefits are obvious and practical: when installing a new GHC, it will save users the tedium of having to figure out how to build a cabal-install and then do so before they can install the packages they actually want. The drawbacks are indefinite and amorphous: the download is a little bit larger. So what? It further blurs the line between GHC and the Platform. Who does this harm? People who already have a cabal-install will now have a second one. What discomfort will this cause them?
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Carter Schonwald
wrote: Hey everyone,
I'd like to propose that GHC releases 7.8.1 onwards include a cabal-install (aka cabal) executable, but not include the library deps of cabal-install that aren't already distributed with ghc.(unless ghc should have those deps baked in, which theres very very good reasons not to do.).
currently if someone wants just a basic haskell install of the freshest ghc they have to install a ghc bindist, then do a boostrap build of cabal-install by hand (if they want to actually get anything done :) ).
This is not a human friendly situation for folks who are new to haskell tooling, but want to try out haskell dev on a server style vm or the like!
point being: It'd be great for haskell usability (and egads amounts of config time, even by seasoned users) the ghc bindists / installers included a cabal-install binary
thoughts? -Carter
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
-- Sincerely yours, -- Daniil _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
-- Regards, Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/

+1 for Carter's proposal - I had actually been planning to make the same
suggestion, but just saw this thread now...
On 27 January 2014 09:39, Austin Seipp
As for shipping with GHC itself: this is technically possible, but slightly annoying to implement, and it also makes the build processes for a release slightly more annoying (which is mostly my problem.) But it is all doable. However, keep in mind I *do not* maintain the binary distributions for everything, nor do Cabal devs have access to all hardware - so all people making upstream releases for their platforms (i.e. Solaris, PowerPC, ARM/Linux, etc) must also package cabal themselves. But perhaps that's not a huge deal.
If ghc provided cabal-install I would be happy to ship that in Fedora instead of a separate package. To me cabal-install is probably the most important tool/package in HP (except for ghc itself of course): many people build/bootstrap latest ghc themselves it seems and so providing the latest cabal-install out of the box too would be a big win IMO, making it much easier to test ghc. (I wouldn't even mind if ghc shipped cabal-install's dependencies too.) Jens ps Of course it could be made a configure option whether to build cabal-install or now: the cabal-install source is already there. ;) :)

Bump!
have we reached any consensus on the different variations of this proposal?
a) i seem to recall some of the cabal maintainers expressing interest in
hosting binaries for major platforms
b) some sort of platform-lite thats the ghc bin dist + cabal-install,
targeted at folks using haskell on server rather than desktop envs -- there
was a bunch of strong support for this (esp those using haskell and aren't
on the major linux distros)
c) incuding a cabal install binary in the release build bin dist for ghc
(there were some reasonable arguments against this)
am I missing any major ideas folks had?
both the "mini lite platform for servers" and "cabal binaries to easily
download" are great ideas.
-Carter
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Jens Petersen
+1 for Carter's proposal - I had actually been planning to make the same suggestion, but just saw this thread now...
On 27 January 2014 09:39, Austin Seipp
wrote: As for shipping with GHC itself: this is technically possible, but slightly annoying to implement, and it also makes the build processes for a release slightly more annoying (which is mostly my problem.) But it is all doable. However, keep in mind I *do not* maintain the binary distributions for everything, nor do Cabal devs have access to all hardware - so all people making upstream releases for their platforms (i.e. Solaris, PowerPC, ARM/Linux, etc) must also package cabal themselves. But perhaps that's not a huge deal.
If ghc provided cabal-install I would be happy to ship that in Fedora instead of a separate package. To me cabal-install is probably the most important tool/package in HP (except for ghc itself of course): many people build/bootstrap latest ghc themselves it seems and so providing the latest cabal-install out of the box too would be a big win IMO, making it much easier to test ghc. (I wouldn't even mind if ghc shipped cabal-install's dependencies too.)
Jens
ps Of course it could be made a configure option whether to build cabal-install or now: the cabal-install source is already there. ;) :)
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

Hi,
On 23 February 2014 05:48, Carter Schonwald
Bump!
have we reached any consensus on the different variations of this proposal?
a) i seem to recall some of the cabal maintainers expressing interest in hosting binaries for major platforms
Austin promised to provide us with build bots for 3/4 of the tier 1 platforms. I assume that he is busy with preparing with the 7.8 release now.
participants (4)
-
Austin Seipp
-
Carter Schonwald
-
Jens Petersen
-
Mikhail Glushenkov