[erlang-questions] Building, Packaging and Installing
Sun May 6 12:14:03 CEST 2012
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> That's a nice idea, but it's not very practical to add a dependency
> on GHC to Erlang users, although if we're just talking server-side
> then that might be an ok solution.
I've mentioned Hackage as a source of inspiration and didn't mean to
say we should depend on GHC on the client-side. If Hackage could be
repurposed to host Erlang bits, that would imply a GHC dep on the
> I think we just need to clearly identify what needs to be improved
> and just fix rebar, anger or sinan to do that. I don't care which
> one it is, as long as there's a de facto standard. Rebar feels
> pretty close to standard at this point, so if we can fix it then
> we'll get the most bang for our buck.
> On Saturday, May 5, 2012, Tristan Sloughter wrote:
> > Tuncer's idea of Hackage for Erlang is interesting. And if it were
> > possible to move something like Hackage to do for Erlang what it
> > does for Haskell, instead of writing from scratch, that could be
> > even better.
More information about the erlang-questions