[darcs-users] [Haskell-cafe] Poll: Do you need to be able to build darcs from source on GHC 6.6?

Jason Dagit dagit at codersbase.com
Thu Oct 30 01:38:22 UTC 2008

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Roundy <droundy at darcs.net> writes:
>> And as far as bundled versions, it's the desire to *remove* a bundled
>> version that's apparently at issue.  I'm not sure why this is
>> considered desirable, but apparently some folks feel strongly about
>> this.
> Could someone please summarize what code is currently bundled with darcs
> that isn't darcs?  I had the impression that most of it was "in house"
> code that had/has not been formalized into a separate libraries yet
> (e.g. an FFI for zlib, byte strings before they were librarified).

You have the right idea.

> To me, that's different from a bundled (convenience) copy, which is
> where you basically download libfoo's tarball, unpack it in your source
> tree, and then do "darcs rec -lam 'Install copy of libfoo 5.1'".

No one has been doing that.  It may happen some day in the release
tarballs but no one has gotten serious about as far as I know.  Nor do
I know of any library that currently needs to be bundled to make darcs
compatible with ghc 6.6.

For what it's worth, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.
As others have pointed out, there is a need to stay compatible with
6.6 for a while longer.  In my eyes the next step is just to establish
the event or point in time that signifies when 6.6 compatibility is no
longer important.

Thanks for your feedback everyone!


More information about the darcs-users mailing list