On March 16, 2010 06:00:23 Joachim Breitner wrote: > But I’m not sure if the benefits are great: Dynamic libraires offer no > ABI stability, so each program will be uninstallable and will have to be > recompiled whenever any library changes. I noticed that packages currently install into a "ghc-<ghcversion>" directory, so there wouldn't actually be any file level conflict with having multiple copies of a package installed for different versions of ghc. Is there any reason we are currently only putting ghc6 in the package name then? I adjusted my dyn patch to put the full version in the name in for just the dyn package (e.g., "libghc6.12.1-mtl-dyn"). This should help with the need to reinstall everything problem as it limits the scope to specific ghc version. It also seems to makes sense for dynamic libraries as you most likely don't want updating ghc to force you to reinstall a bunch of other binaries. Or, perhaps, the dyn library should have the hash snippet in its name and in the directory paths too. This way binaries would never be forced to be updated due to the library changing, and nothing would every break unexpectedly. Basically a Nix style thing (http://nixos.org). Cheers! -Tyson
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.