Update
This commit is contained in:
parent
f12a2b3821
commit
32e34876e2
@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ Oddly, this question has been asked a couple of times. For the curious, here are
|
|||||||
2. Even if they did, it doesn't seem it would have satisfied their needs
|
2. Even if they did, it doesn't seem it would have satisfied their needs
|
||||||
- it didn't support cabal installation, which was the main motivation behind GHCup back then
|
- it didn't support cabal installation, which was the main motivation behind GHCup back then
|
||||||
- depending on a codebase as big as stack for a central part of one's application without having a short contribution pipeline would likely have caused stagnation or resulted in simply copy-pasting the relevant code in order to adjust it
|
- depending on a codebase as big as stack for a central part of one's application without having a short contribution pipeline would likely have caused stagnation or resulted in simply copy-pasting the relevant code in order to adjust it
|
||||||
- it's nor clear how GHCup would have been implemented with the provided API. It seems the codebases are fairly different. GHCup does a lot of symlink handling to expose a central `bin/` directory that users can easily put in PATH, without having to worry about anything more. It also provides explicit removal functionality, GHC cross-compilation, a TUI, etc etc.
|
- it's not clear how GHCup would have been implemented with the provided API. It seems the codebases are fairly different. GHCup does a lot of symlink handling to expose a central `bin/` directory that users can easily put in PATH, without having to worry about anything more. It also provides explicit removal functionality, GHC cross-compilation, a TUI, etc etc.
|
||||||
3. GHCup is built around unix principles and supposed to be simple.
|
3. GHCup is built around unix principles and supposed to be simple.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Why not unify...
|
### Why not unify...
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user