Manual is OK if there's at least a clear path to getting something to install. I don't see that path, though.
My biggest issue is that I don't have the expertise to debug an obscure Haskell compilation error. I won't develop that expertise unless I can use Haskell over the long term on real projects. I can't do that unless libraries are available. So it's a chicken and egg problem.
I think the same is true for many people who'd like to dive deeper into Haskell. If we can't initially lean on the work of expert package maintainers, we can't ever become Haskell experts ourselves. I believe the developer community could expand very quickly if this problem could be solved.
Certainly the case. Much eased (though not eliminated) by the recent addition of cabal sandboxes. There's still no good way to see all the native libraries required by a cabal install, and occasionally there are actual conflicts between packages... I've been meaning to populate http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Resolving_Cabal_Hell but have been kinda hoping (almost certainly in vain) that someone with deeper knowledge beats me to it.
My biggest issue is that I don't have the expertise to debug an obscure Haskell compilation error. I won't develop that expertise unless I can use Haskell over the long term on real projects. I can't do that unless libraries are available. So it's a chicken and egg problem.
I think the same is true for many people who'd like to dive deeper into Haskell. If we can't initially lean on the work of expert package maintainers, we can't ever become Haskell experts ourselves. I believe the developer community could expand very quickly if this problem could be solved.