3 ms·
>>Ideally, getting a basic setup going shouldn't take a deep-read of the docs of my package manager. >Please name one package manager which installs binaries t
by tedivm 14y ago
>>Ideally, getting a basic setup going shouldn't take a deep-read of the docs of my package manager.
>Please name one package manager which installs binaries to the user's home directory, but doesn't require updating the user's $PATH.
Do you even realize how little those two statements follow each other? The whole red herring argument here is kind of annoying, but I'll hit it anyways- every package manager that I've used which installs binaries (or anything, really) in the user's home directory (or any directory really) does make me update the path- but it also tells me this and gives me sane errors when that hasn't happened.
- jmillikin 14y agoIn my experience, other package managers (my experience is with Python's and Ruby's) will behave just like Haskell's. Specifically, they do not seem to inspect the user's $PATH variable to determine whether their default installation directory is present.
- carterschonwald 14y agoI agree with everything you have posted.
- wowzer 14y agoHaving used both Haskell's package manager cabal and Python's pip and easy_install. Cabal has a long way to go before it's anything like pip. You can see cabal moving in the right direction, but pip is leagues ahead of it right now, especially when using virtualenv.
- jmillikin 14y agoIn what ways do you find pip better than cabal, or pip+virtualenv better than cabal-dev?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]