Update FAQ
This commit is contained in:
parent
53ca60596d
commit
844b4decab
77
README.md
77
README.md
@ -255,20 +255,85 @@ Windows 7 and Powershell 2.0 aren't well supported at the moment, also see:
|
||||
|
||||
## FAQ
|
||||
|
||||
1. Why reimplement stack?
|
||||
### Why reimplement stack?
|
||||
|
||||
ghcup is not a reimplementation of stack. The only common part is automatic installation of GHC, but even that differs in scope and design.
|
||||
GHCup is not a reimplementation of stack. The only common part is automatic installation of GHC,
|
||||
but even that differs in scope and design.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Why not support windows?
|
||||
### Why does ghcup now use stack code?
|
||||
|
||||
We do.
|
||||
Oddly, this question has been asked a couple of times. For the curious, here are a few reasons:
|
||||
|
||||
3. Why the haskell reimplementation?
|
||||
1. GHCup started as a shell script. At the time of rewriting it in Haskell, the authors didn't even know that stack exposes *some* of its [installation API](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/stack-2.5.1.1/docs/Stack-Setup.html)
|
||||
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
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
3. GHCup is built around unix principles and supposed to be simple.
|
||||
|
||||
ghcup started as a portable posix shell script of maybe 50 LOC. GHC installation itself can be carried out in
|
||||
### Why not unify...
|
||||
|
||||
#### ...stack and Cabal and do away with standalone installers
|
||||
|
||||
GHCup is not involved in such decisions. cabal-install and stack might have a
|
||||
sufficiently different user experience to warrant having a choice.
|
||||
|
||||
#### ...installer implementations and have a common library
|
||||
|
||||
This sounds like an interesting goal. However, GHC installation isn't a hard engineering problem
|
||||
and the shared code wouldn't be too exciting. For such an effort to make sense, all involved
|
||||
parties would need to collaborate and have a short pipeline to get patches in.
|
||||
|
||||
It's true this would solve the integration problem, but following unix principles, we can
|
||||
do similar via **hooks**. Both cabal and stack can support installation hooks. These hooks
|
||||
can then call into ghcup or anything else, also see:
|
||||
|
||||
* https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/7394
|
||||
* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/5585
|
||||
|
||||
#### ...installers (like, all of it)
|
||||
|
||||
So far, there hasn't been an **open** discussion about this. Is this even a good idea?
|
||||
Sometimes projects converge eventually if their overlap is big enough, sometimes they don't.
|
||||
|
||||
While unification sounds like a simplification of the ecosystem, it also takes away choice.
|
||||
Take `curl` and `wget` as an example.
|
||||
|
||||
How bad do we need this?
|
||||
|
||||
### Why should I use ghcup over stack?
|
||||
|
||||
GHCup is not a replacement for stack. Instead, it supports installing and managing stack versions.
|
||||
It does the same for cabal, GHC and HLS. As such, It doesn't make a workflow choice for you.
|
||||
|
||||
### Why should I let ghcup manage stack?
|
||||
|
||||
You don't need to. However, some users seem to prefer to have a central tool that manages cabal and stack
|
||||
at the same time. Additionally, it can allow better sharing of GHC installation across these tools.
|
||||
Also see:
|
||||
|
||||
* https://docs.haskellstack.org/en/stable/yaml_configuration/#system-ghc
|
||||
* https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/pull/5585
|
||||
|
||||
### Why not support windows?
|
||||
|
||||
Windows is supported since GHCup version 0.1.15.1.
|
||||
|
||||
### Why the haskell reimplementation?
|
||||
|
||||
GHCup started as a portable posix shell script of maybe 50 LOC. GHC installation itself can be carried out in
|
||||
about ~3 lines of shell code (download, unpack , configure+make install). However, much convenient functionality
|
||||
has been added since, as well as ensuring that all operations are safe and correct. The shell script ended up with
|
||||
over 2k LOC, which was very hard to maintain.
|
||||
|
||||
The main concern when switching from a portable shell script to haskell was platform/architecture support.
|
||||
However, ghcup now re-uses GHCs CI infrastructure and as such is perfectly in sync with all platforms that
|
||||
GHC supports.
|
||||
|
||||
### Is GHCup affiliated with the Haskell Foundation?
|
||||
|
||||
There has been some collaboration: Windows and Stack support were mainly requested by the Haskell Foundation
|
||||
and those seemed interesting features to add.
|
||||
|
||||
Other than that, GHCup is dedicated only to its users and is supported by haskell.org through hosting and CI
|
||||
infrastructure.
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user