Re: ∀lib: Debian(lib) >= Platform(lib)
Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org> writes:
Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org> writes:
>> I think it is important to point out that the Haskell platform
>> metapackage is for developers, rather than users.
> this is an interesting opinion. I was under the impression that the
> platform was aiming for the user that wants to compile software not
> provided by his distribution.
Okay, I separated people into "users" (apt-get install foo) and
"developers", clearly, a user who compiles some software falls
between, and is closer to my "developer" than my "user".
So, for somebody stumbling across a random Haskell program and wants
it compiled, it's a great advantage to be able to say "apt-get install
haskell-platform, and type Make".
For somebody getting a cabalized package off Hackage, they *could* get
almost the same convenience using cabal-install, but the distribution
packages are more likely to be automatically upgraded, bugfixed,
bug-tracked and tested - both for compatibility with each other, and
with the distribution-supplied C libraries, and probably by a larger
audience, so it's more likely to work -- or at least, if it doesn't,
you're less likely to be alone with your problem.
But surely I don't need to pontificate the advantages of apt-get in
this forum...?
> If the platform is really meant to be for developers only, then
> there is no urgent need for distribution support.
Except that:
> Application developers are very likely to be using cabal anyways,
...which is a *disadvantage*, application end up depending on a
hodge-podge of different libraries and versions. Having a widely
distributed Platform will foster standardisation and portability.
I'm a developer, and I try to stick with what my distribution ships,
rather than the latest and greatest from Hackage. So I'm very, very
happy to see that my distribution is picking up. Thanks!
> or at least able to selectively install the libraries from the platform
> via apt-get.
True - but which HTTP library to choose? Which RDBMS library? Which
XML parser? If one is HP-blessed, the choice is a lot easier.
> And when it comes to packaging applications that use
> the platform, we could just replace this dependency in the cabal
> file by the libraries that are actually used. (Which we probably
> should do in any case).
Yes, I don't think applications should depend on the platform - unless
the platform starts to be distributed as a single entity upstream.
But I do think that any distribution should strive to provide the
libraries contained in the platform, and once you do, I see no good
argument about providing a metapackage pulling them all in.
-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Reply to: