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

David Roundy droundy at darcs.net
Thu Oct 30 18:04:29 UTC 2008

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:16:17PM +1100, Trent W. Buck 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).

Yes, that's what I was referring to.  The bytestring library is a
descendant of the FastPackedString module that is still in darcs.  Recently
Ganesh added the ability for darcs to use bytestring instead if its own
code, and dons has submitted code to remove FastPackedString in favor of

> 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'".

Yes, I agree.  But continuing to keep our own code has the same sorts of
benefits that bundling other libraries has (without the legal hassle).
David Roundy

More information about the darcs-users mailing list