Hello!
I hate every Haskell package related thing, so take what I say with a
grain of salt. Have you considered using cblrepo? It's working fine for
me, even for packages they didn't have yet.
They have binary packages in an unofficial repository
(https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unofficial_u
Without trying to create a flame war, is there any chance to
reconsider going back to use static linking with Cabal and Haskell
programs?
I ask for this because in my case, it has been pretty painful trying
to use Cabal to build my code pulling multiple dependencies from
Hackage, as I suffered man
On 07/03/2017 02:48 PM, Sebastian Reuße via arch-general wrote:
> Sebastian Reuße via arch-general writes:
>
>> Felix Yan writes:
>
>>> An idea is to provide an alternative package database in the ghc-static
>>> package that only contains the boot libraries. You will need to ignore
>>> global p
Sebastian Reuße via arch-general writes:
> Felix Yan writes:
>> An idea is to provide an alternative package database in the ghc-static
>> package that only contains the boot libraries. You will need to ignore
>> global package database and specify that alternative path to use it.
>> Does this
Eli Schwartz via arch-general writes:
> On 06/26/2017 02:45 AM, Óscar García Amor wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Some days ago the pandoc mantainer [1] do a rebuild of it [2] where
>> add a lot of haskell package dependencies. I think that the build
>> changes the binary from statically linked to di
Hello Felix,
Felix Yan writes:
> On 06/26/2017 09:42 PM, Sebastian Reuße via arch-general wrote:
>> Can you advise whether it’s currently possible to do sandboxed static
>> builds at all? The issue I’m running into is that Cabal won’t install
>> sandboxed dependencies if it sees that the corresp
On 06/26/2017 09:42 PM, Sebastian Reuße via arch-general wrote:
> Can you advise whether it’s currently possible to do sandboxed static
> builds at all? The issue I’m running into is that Cabal won’t install
> sandboxed dependencies if it sees that the corresponding packages are
> already registere
Hello Felix,
Felix Yan writes:
> The basic idea is to make the haskell libraries in our official repos
> less bloated and more friendly to end users, instead of providing all
> development oriented features. Unfortunately I didn't get enough
> feedback on that topic. As the ghc package costs mor
On 06/26/2017 08:23 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> Which, to be fair, has some justification in that technically speaking,
> statically-compiled haskell programs were an ugly bug. It's just a pity
> haskell is such a terribly bloated ecosystem. :p
Half a year ago we have a discussion h
On 06/26/2017 02:45 AM, Óscar García Amor wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Some days ago the pandoc mantainer [1] do a rebuild of it [2] where
> add a lot of haskell package dependencies. I think that the build
> changes the binary from statically linked to dinamically linked, but
> IMHO, I prefer the stat
Hello all,
Some days ago the pandoc mantainer [1] do a rebuild of it [2] where
add a lot of haskell package dependencies. I think that the build
changes the binary from statically linked to dinamically linked, but
IMHO, I prefer the static one (55,08 MiB of package) over the dinamic
(more than 666
11 matches
Mail list logo
