From: Maurício <bri...@ya...> - 2009-06-23 03:05:07
|
Do you think it would be possible for gtk2hs to have it's own hackage? I don't know how far we are from having hackage as an independent tool that we can just install and start, but I do think it would be nice to have a place where our gtk2hs dependent packages could build with no errors. What do you think? Is this a bad, or unfeasible, idea? Best, Maurício |
From: Axel S. <Axe...@en...> - 2009-06-23 09:46:06
|
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 22:55 -0300, Maurício wrote: > Do you think it would be possible for gtk2hs > to have it's own hackage? I don't know how far > we are from having hackage as an independent > tool that we can just install and start, but I > do think it would be nice to have a place where > our gtk2hs dependent packages could build with > no errors. > > What do you think? Is this a bad, or unfeasible, > idea? Hm, probably in the bad category. If we had sufficient time, we should just convert Gtk2Hs to use Cabal. Since we can program anything within ./Setup.hs, it should be able to get it to build somehow, even with all the weird dependencies. Axel. |
From: Maurício <bri...@ya...> - 2009-06-23 11:58:43
|
>> Do you think it would be possible for gtk2hs >> to have it's own hackage? (...) Is this a bad, >> or unfeasible, idea? > Hm, probably in the bad category. If we had sufficient time, we should > just convert Gtk2Hs to use Cabal. (...) Is there a list of what is needed to get that? Maurício |