On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 09:22:56PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> In the initial discussions on a common architecture for building
> applications and libraries one of the goals was to reduce or eliminate
> untracked dependencies. The aim being that you could reliably deploy a
> package from one machine to another.
>
> We settled on a fairly traditional model, where one specifies the names
> and versions of packages of Haskell code.
Do you actually have any precedent for such a system? I've never heard of
one, but then I've been sort of sheltered, due to living in the linux world
where there is a distinction between packagers and upstream authors. I
consider this a useful distinction. But that's probably because I'm lazy,
or perhaps because I care about my users--and thus like to give them
options and reduce the dependencies of my software.
I know there is a long history of the autoconf-style approach being
successful. Can you point to any success stories of the approach chosen
for cabal?
David
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@...
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
