How can I browse Haskell source code preferably without internet connection? Right now I click through hackage search results, click source link and search the source page. There are two problems:
I'm using current version as a proxy of what I have locally
This does not work recursively well (another clicks and searches for next definition)
Usually IDEs let you download sources for any library and open new editor tab with definition. I prefer reading code than documentation, less surprises along the way and I can learn something from them.
So, how can I setup for recursive source searches using Haskell tools or standard GNU tools if necessary? All I know right now is that I can generate ctags for vim but where does cabal store sources?
This is the opinionated workflow I follow to render the documentation with the source link enabled.
$ cd <package-name>
$ cabal sandbox init
$ cabal install --only-dependencies --enable-documentation --haddock-hyperlink-source
$ cabal configure --enable-documentation --haddock-hyperlink-source
$ cabal haddock --hyperlink-source
$ firefox dist/doc/html/<package-name>/index.html
The Source link should be enabled for all packages, including the dependencies, as long as they are installed in the sandbox.
In the particular case of Arch Linux, the distro I use, I try to avoid installing Haskell system packages through pacman because, by default, the documentation is not built with the source link enabled. In Arch Linux you can use ABS and modify the PKGBUILD with the parameters described above. I'm pretty sure something similar could be done in other distros, but have no idea about Windows or Mac OS X.
It's also worth mentioning that you don't need to type those parameters every time you run cabal. You can enable them by default in your .cabal/config
This should work without the sandbox but if you are dealing with more than one Haskell project I strongly recommend to use sandboxes.
Related
In the Cabal User Guide it says that Cabal is often compared with autoconf and automake since the command line interface for actually configuring and building packages follows the same steps steps:
./configure --prefix=...
make
make install
compared to
cabal configure --prefix=...
cabal build
cabal install
My understanding is that ./configure uses a config file (produced by autoconf) to adapt the make process to the environment in which it will run and also to check dependencies. So ./configure therefore always have an "input" to conform to. But if cabal configure is not given any arguments what does it do, and why is it necessary before running cabal build?
The cabal configure step does at least two things I know of:
Check that the package description parses OK.
Check that all required dependencies are already installed (and report an error if not).
Basically it's running the constraint solver to decide exactly which packages you're going to build against. (E.g., if you have several versions of ByteString installed, which version are you going to use? Well it might depend on which version the packages you depend on are expecting...)
Also I believe it's possible to supply options at configure time which change exactly which features of the package get built (but I don't have experience with this).
I think originally you had to call configure before you could call build, but I believe now the cabal command-line tool does that step for you automatically in many cases. (E.g., cabal run now seems to automatically reconfigure if the package description file is newer than the configuration DB.)
I recently downloaded the Haskell Platform from the Haskell website. Under the suggestion of the newer answers in this, I blindly ran brew install ghc cabal-install and cabal install cabal cabal-install. Did I install two versions of Haskell on my machine? What should I do to fix any problems?
It doesn't necessarily lead to problems to have multiple versions (I think I have three different versions installed). If you need the disk space uninstall one of the two (instructions for the brew one, for the packaged platform it seems you should be able to use the command sudo uninstall-hs but check it yourself first). If you don't mind the lost disk space, you only have to make sure you have your PATH set up correctly, with the directory containing the ghc binary you want to use in your PATH, before the directory of the other one.
Also, cabal install cabal-install (which you might need to run to update cabal) tends to install cabal in a different place than the platform/brew do, so there, again, you need to make sure your PATH is appropriately set. Normally cabal installs executables in ~/.cabal/bin (local installs) or /usr/local/bin (global installs). The directory containing cabal should go before the others, because an old version of cabal might stick around and you want the new one to be found first.
You probably know this but you can use which ghc and which cabal to check the location of the executable actually being used.
To make things even more complicated, lately it's popular to use Stack, which can also install ghc for you (I find this very convenient, everything is kept in a very controlled environment). So depending on your experience/use case this might be worth looking at as well (but if you just want to try Haskell I recommend you stick with the platform or the brew installation).
I have the 3.0.1 version of Alex installed on my /usr/bin. I think the Haskell Platform originally put it there (although I'm not 100% sure...).
Unfortunately, version 3.0.1 is bugged so I need to upgrade it to 3.0.5. I tried using cabal to install the latest version of Alex but cabal install alex-3.0.5 it installed the executable on .cabal/bin over on my home folder instead of on /usr/bin
Do I just manually copy the executable to /usr/bin? (that sound like a lot of trouble to do all the time)
Do I change my PATH environment variable so that .cabal/bin comes before /usr/bin? (I'm afraid that an "ls" executable or similar over on the cabal folder might end up messing up my system)
Or is there a simpler way to go at it in general?
I want to first point out the layout that works well for me, and then suggest how you might proceed in your particular situation.
What works well for me
In general, I think that a better layout is to have the following search path:
directories with important non-Haskell related binaries
directory that cabal install installs to
directory that binaries from the Haskell platform are in
This way, you can use cabal install to update binaries from the Haskell platform, but they cannot accidently shadow some non-Haskell related binary.
(On my Windows machine, this layout is easy to achieve, because the binaries from the Haskell platform are installed in a separate directory by default. So I just manually adapt the search path and that's it. I don't know how to achieve it on other platforms).
Suggestion for your particular situation
In your specific situation with the Haskell platform binaries already installed together with the non-Haskell related binaries, maybe you can use the following layout for the search path:
directory containing links to some of the binaries in 3
directory with important non-Haskell related binaries and Haskell platform binaries
directory that cabal install installs to.
This way, binaries from cabal install cannot accidently shadow the important stuff in 2. But if you decide you want to shadow something form the Haskell platform, you can manually add a link to 1. If it's a soft link, I think you only have to do that once per program name, and then you can call cabal install for that program to update it. You could even look up what executables are bundled with the Haskell platform and do that once and for all.
On second though, putting /.cabal/bin in front of /usr/bin in the PATH is simpler and is what most people do already.
Its also not a big deal since only cabal will put files in .cabal/bin so it should be predictable and with little risk of overwriting stuff.
I have a question about the structure of the source code from a cygport package.
Here is the contents of a Cygports source file:
the actual source bundle for the project (tar.gz, tar.bz2, etc.)
the any number of *.patch files.
a .cygport file
I am trying to build gedit-3.4.2 from cygports repository.
How does the .cygport file help me run the proper options in the ./configure ?
For instance, in gedit if i don't specify --disable-spell it won't proceed due to error. How do I get the list of ./configure options that were used to build the project when the cygport was built?
Is there some way we can use the cygport executable to build the cygport and change the prefix too?
Here is the contents of gedit-3.4.2-1.cygport:
inherit python gnome2
DESCRIPTION="GNOME text editor"
PATCH_URI="3.4.2-cygwin.patch"
DEPEND="gnome-common gtk-doc
girepository(Gtk-3.0)
pkgconfig(enchant)
pkgconfig(gtksourceview-3.0)
pkgconfig(libpeas-gtk-1.0)"
PKG_NAMES="${PN} ${PN}-devel"
PKG_HINTS="setup devel"
gedit_CONTENTS="--exclude=gtk-doc --exclude=libgedit* etc/ usr/bin/ usr/lib/gedit/ ${PYTHON_SITELIB#/} usr/share/"
gedit_devel_CONTENTS="usr/include/ usr/lib/gedit/libgedit* usr/lib/pkgconfig/ usr/share/gtk-doc/"
DIFF_EXCLUDES="*.desktop.in *.schemas.in *-marshal.h"
CYGCONF_ARGS="--libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-python"
KEEP_LA_FILES="none"
EDIT Someone from Cygwin Ports mailing list said:
"The configure options are
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-python
Which is from CYGCONF_ARGS."
Here is the contents of a Cygports source file:
You'd do better to think of it as a Cygwin package source file.
cygport is simply a tool for automating the creation of Cygwin binary and source packages. It is the primary tool available, but unlike with some other packaging systems, there's really nothing forcing you to use it. It is quite possible to build a Cygwin package entirely by hand, since it is really nothing more than a tarball that Cygwin's setup.exe can blindly unpack into the Cygwin root directory (typically c:\cygwin) with the expectation that this will put the package's files in sensible locations.
Before cygport existed, people did build their own ad hoc packaging systems. Many Cygwin package maintainers still use these tools they created. (Yours truly included; two of my three packages use cygport, but the third still uses a custom build system.)
Ultimately, you want to read the cygport manual, in /usr/share/doc/cygport/manual.html.
(Yes, I know, "RTFM" answers are frowned on here. But, as one who currently maintains two cygport based packages in the official Cygwin package repository, please believe me when I tell you that the manual is still the single best resource available on this topic.)
How does the .cygport file help me run the proper options in the ./configure ?
As you found out through other resources, you'd first need to edit the CYGCONF_ARGS value in the .cygport file.
The simplest possible step after that is cygport gedit-3.4.2-1.cygport all. That attempts to rebuild all the binary packages in a single step. It also builds a new source package containing updated .cygport and patch files.
If something breaks in the all build process, it is usually faster to switch to using the sub-commands contained by all instead of completely restarting the process. The all step just runs prep, compile, install, package, and finish for you, in that order. For instance, if all fails during the compilation step, there's probably no need to repeat the prep step.
(It is exceptionally uncommon for cygport or a sane build system to wreck the build tree, forcing you to re-run prep. Far more commonly, you end up needing to re-do prep when you manually wreck the build tree while trying to get a new package to build for the first time and need to start over.)
For instance, in gedit if i don't specify --disable-spell it won't proceed due to error.
You can probably fix that by installing the libaspell-devel package from the official Cygwin package repository with setup.exe.
Personally, I wouldn't disable any feature unless it meant installing unofficial packages, such as those from the Cygwin Ports project.[*] It is nice to have Cygwin Ports repository, but because it contains so many packages, installing one can end up creating an "install the world" situation: package A depends on packages B, C and D, and C depends on E, F, G, H, and G depends on I, J, K, and... Dependency hierarchies within the Cygwin package repo tend to be flatter and narrower than those in the Cygports repo.
Is there some way we can use the cygport executable to build the cygport and change the prefix too?
You have guessed that you just add --prefix=/my/private/program/tree to CYGCONF_ARGS, I trust.
[*] If you are feeling confused about "Cygwin Ports" and cygport, the naming similarity is no coincidence. cygport is a tool created by Yaakov Selkowitz for himself when creating the Cygwin Ports package repository. Later, it became popular enough among other Cygwin package maintainers that it pushed out most of the competing build systems.
I'm looking into trying to find an easy way to manage packages compiled from source so that when it comes time to upgrade, I'm not in a huge mess trying to uninstall/install the new package.
I found a utility called CheckInstall, but it seems to be quite old, and I was wondering if this a reliable solution before I begin using it?
http://www.asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/
Also would simply likely to know any other methods/utilities that you use to handle these installations from source?
Whatever you do, make sure that you eventually go through your distribution's package management system (e.g. rpm for Fedora/Mandriva/RH/SuSE, dpkg for Debian/Ubuntu etc). Otherwise your package manager will not know anything about the packages you installed by hand and you will have unsatisfied dependencies at best, or the mother of all messes at worst.
If you don't have a package manager, then get one and stick with it!
I would suggest that you learn to make your own packages. You can start by having a look at the source packages of your distribution. In fact, if all you want to do is upgrade to version 1.2.3 of MyPackage, your distribution's source package for 1.2.2 can usually be adapted with a simple version change (unless there are patches, but that's another story...).
Unless you want distribution-quality packages (e.g. split library/application/debugging packages, multiple-architecture support etc) it is usually easy to convert your typical configure & make & make install scenario into a proper source package. If you can convince your package to install into a directory rather than /, you are usually done.
As for checkinstall, I have used it in the past, and it worked for a couple of simple packages, but I did not like the fact that it actually let the package install itself onto my system before creating the rpm/deb package. It just tracked which files got installed so that it would package them, which did not protect against unwelcome changes. Oh, and it needed root prilileges to work, which is another main sticking point for me. And lets not go into what happens with statically linked core utilities...
Most tools of the kind seem to work that way, so I simply learnt to build my own packages The Right Way (TM) and let checkinstall and friends mess around elsewhere. If you are still interested, however, there is a list of similar programs here:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/automating-destdir.html
PS: BTW checkinstall was updated at the end of 2009, which probably means that it's still adequately current.
EDIT:
In my opinion, the easiest way to perform an upgrade to the latest version of a package if it is not readily available in a repository is to alter the source package of the latest version in your distribution. E.g. for Centos the source packages for the latest version are here:
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/os/SRPMS/
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/updates/SRPMS/
...
If you want to upgrade e.g. php, you get the latest SRPM for your distrbution e.g. php-5.1.6-27.el5.src.rpm. Then you do:
rpm -hiv php-5.1.6-27.el5.src.rpm
which installs the source package (just the sources - it does not compile anything). Then you go to the rpm build directory (on my mandriva system its /usr/src/rpm), you copy the latest php source tarball to the SOURCES subdirectory and you make sure it's compressed in the same way as the tarball that just got installed there. Afterwards you edit the php.spec file in the SPECS directory to change the package version and build the binary package with something like:
rpmbuild -ba php.spec
In many cases that's all it will take for a new package. In others things might get a bit more complicated - if there are patches or if there are some major changes in the package you might have to do more.
I suggest you read up on the rpm and rpmbuild commands (their manpages are quite good, in a bit extensive) and check up the documentation on writing spec files. Even if you decide to rely on official backport repositories, it is useful to know how to build your own packages. See also:
http://www.rpm.org/wiki/Docs
EDIT 2:
If you are already installing packages from source, using rpm will actually simplify the building process in the long term, apart from maintaining the integrity of your system. The reason for this is that you won't have to remember the quirks of each package on your own ("oooh, right, now I remember, foo needs me to add -lbar to its CFLAGS"), as the build process will be in the .spec file, which you could imagine as a somewhat structured build script.
As far as upgrading goes, if you already have a .spec file for a previous version of the package, there are two main issues that you may encounter, but both exist whether you use rpm to build your package or not:
A patch that was applied to the previous version by the distribution does not apply any more. In many cases the patch has already been applied to the upstream package, so you can simply drop it. In others you may have to edit it - or I suppose if you deem it unimportant you can drop it too.
The package changed in some major way which affected e.g. the layout of the files it installs. You do read the release notes notes for each new version, don't you?
Other than these two issues, upgrading often boils down to just changing a version number in the spec file and running rpmbuild - even easier than installing from a tarball.
I would suggest that you have a look at the tutorials or at the source package for some simple piece of software such as:
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/os/SRPMS/ipv6calc-0.61-1.src.rpm
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5.5/os/SRPMS/libevent-1.4.13-1.src.rpm
If you have experience in buildling packages from a tarball, using rpm to build software is not much of a leap really. It will never be as simple as installing a premade binary package, however.
I use checkinstall on Debian. It should not be so different on CentOS. I use it like that:
./configure
make
sudo checkinstall make install # fakeroot in place of sudo works usally for more security
# install the package generated