Re: how to package Haskell libraries
On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 04:38, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 09:07:05PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> > Right, but that approach definitely has some disadvantages, namely
> > fragility and the fact that we're kind of subverting the whole idea of
> > binary packages.
>
> It kind of depends on what "Haskell library" means. Is it more like a
> C library (potentially complex build system, dependencies, etc) or is
> it more like a Perl module?
Probably somewhere in between.
> Nobody in their sane mind would propose to
> build XS modules on the user's system, but Python folks seems to be
> happy about having their pyc and pyo files generated in the postinst.
Python is different because
1) Python programs will still work even if the byte-compilation fails.
Python just looks for .pyo first, and falls back to interpreting .py.
2) There's only one Python implementation, so random Python code is
fairly likely to work with it :)
Reply to: