Haskell Platform on Ubuntu

[Erik de Castro Lopo-34]

Matthias Görgens wrote:

> Yes.  The sanest approach for any distribution would seem to install
> are bare bones ghc + cabal (cabal install) and let the cabal package
> system do the hard work directly.

Cabal works really well for a single developer on a single machine.

Debian packages work really well where there are multiple developers
on multiple machines and auto-build bots where you want all of these
to be using the exact same binary package.

The reason I am pursuing the Debian way is because I find the second
option far more useful.

Erik
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@...
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

[Magnus Therning]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Erik de Castro
Lopo<mle+hs@...> wrote:

> Matthias Görgens wrote:
>
>> Yes.  The sanest approach for any distribution would seem to install
>> are bare bones ghc + cabal (cabal install) and let the cabal package
>> system do the hard work directly.
>
> Cabal works really well for a single developer on a single machine.
>
> Debian packages work really well where there are multiple developers
> on multiple machines and auto-build bots where you want all of these
> to be using the exact same binary package.

It also works really well for _users_ of applications written in
Haskell.  The introduction of dynamic linking will mean that those
applications need the pre-built libraries they depend on.

/M

--
Magnus Therning                        (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
[e-mail]          Jabber: [e-mail]
http://therning.org/magnus         identi.ca|twitter: magthe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@...
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

[Don Stewart-2]

mle+hs:

> Matthias Görgens wrote:
>
> > Yes.  The sanest approach for any distribution would seem to install
> > are bare bones ghc + cabal (cabal install) and let the cabal package
> > system do the hard work directly.
>
> Cabal works really well for a single developer on a single machine.
>
> Debian packages work really well where there are multiple developers
> on multiple machines and auto-build bots where you want all of these
> to be using the exact same binary package.
>
> The reason I am pursuing the Debian way is because I find the second
> option far more useful.
>

And distro packages are much easier for new users (who can later
graduate to the cabal-install cabal).

-- Don
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@...
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi Erik,

Am Mittwoch, den 08.07.2009, 17:15 +1000 schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
> The Ocaml programming language has exactly the same problem, but
> the Debian Ocaml maintainers have automated the process and last
> time to Ocaml compiler version was updated over 95% of all Ocaml
> libraries were rebuilt within 24 hours.

looking at
http://debian.glondu.net/monitor/ocaml/ocaml_transition_monitor.html I
get the impression that the Ocaml guys need to re-build everything when
a new Ocaml library comes out, but not when just a dependency was
upgraded. Is that right? If it is so, we have an excuse due to our
slightly more complicated procedure.

Also, how do they get it in 24 – don’t they have to wait, for each level
in the dependency tree, for the former level to have been built on a
buildd, upload signed by a buildd admin and them moved to the archive
with the next mirror push?

Greetings,
Joachim

--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@... | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@... | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@...
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

[Erik de Castro Lopo-34]

Joachim Breitner wrote:

> looking at
> http://debian.glondu.net/monitor/ocaml/ocaml_transition_monitor.html I
> get the impression that the Ocaml guys need to re-build everything when
> a new Ocaml library

I assume you mean compiler there?

> comes out, but not when just a dependency was upgraded. Is that right?

I'm not really sure about that.

Ocaml libraries seem (warning, generalizations follow) seem to be fewer
in number that Haskell but be more comprehensive. Haskell has far more
small libraries and as a result, Haskell projects often have much deeper
and wider dependency trees than similar Ocaml projects.

> If it is so, we have an excuse due to our
> slightly more complicated procedure.

Yes, I agree that the Haskell problem is a more difficult example
of the same problems the Ocaml maintainers face. There may also be
parts which the Ocaml maintainers don't have to face at all, but
in general, the Haskell problem is similar to the Ocaml one.

> Also, how do they get it in 24 – don’t they have to wait, for each level
> in the dependency tree, for the former level to have been built on a
> buildd, upload signed by a buildd admin and them moved to the archive
> with the next mirror push?

Sorry, I'm not sure of how they do it. I just notice that something
in their first round of compiles like camlbz2 was build on amd64 on
20090629-2107 and something in their last round like json-static
was built on amd64 on 20090701-1149.

Erik
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@...
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

[Don Stewart-2]

mle+hs:

> Joachim Breitner wrote:
>
> > looking at
> > http://debian.glondu.net/monitor/ocaml/ocaml_transition_monitor.html I
> > get the impression that the Ocaml guys need to re-build everything when
> > a new Ocaml library
>
> I assume you mean compiler there?
>
> > comes out, but not when just a dependency was upgraded. Is that right?
>
> I'm not really sure about that.
>
> Ocaml libraries seem (warning, generalizations follow) seem to be fewer
> in number that Haskell but be more comprehensive. Haskell has far more
> small libraries and as a result, Haskell projects often have much deeper
> and wider dependency trees than similar Ocaml projects.

The difference is cabal-install: automated dependency resolving makes
for more packages.

> > If it is so, we have an excuse due to our
> > slightly more complicated procedure.
>
> Yes, I agree that the Haskell problem is a more difficult example
> of the same problems the Ocaml maintainers face. There may also be
> parts which the Ocaml maintainers don't have to face at all, but
> in general, the Haskell problem is similar to the Ocaml one.
>
> > Also, how do they get it in 24 – don’t they have to wait, for each level
> > in the dependency tree, for the former level to have been built on a
> > buildd, upload signed by a buildd admin and them moved to the archive
> > with the next mirror push?

Also, the Haskell libs are updating more frequently (more of them, and
more updates).

We're averaging 10 updates a day atm:

    http://www.galois.com/~dons/images/hackage-daily-graph.png

-- Don
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@...
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe