Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
As far as I am concerned, building GHC is turning into a big mess. We
discussed ways to improve it again, BUT I'd rather not see it getting
any messier before it gets better. Hence, please let's have a complete
plan that we are convinced will work before making
On 11 Aug 2008, at 23:15, Don Stewart wrote:
Eric Mertens kindly did some experiments on the various git repos,
and servers, and approaches to serving.
* We're looking at 45 mins for a full history darcs get
of ghc, over http, from darcs.haskell.org.
* git clone of full ghc over http, from
On 12 Aug 2008, at 01:35, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Ah, good point! Changing ghc to git means *all* developers of boot
libraries need to use git *regardless* of what repo format the boot
libraries are in. After all, they need to validate against the
current ghc head before pushing.
| It is worth pointing out that I *never* validate against ghc head when
| I commit to the core libraries.
I think that's perfectly reasonable for the reasons you explain.
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 14:29 +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:
On 11 Aug 2008, at 13:00, Duncan Coutts wrote:
It's not clear to me that we've really bothered to find out. The last
evaluation in relation to ghc that I'm aware of was prior to the 2.0
release. My impression is that we've all
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:20:14AM +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
To be honest, if you ask me, I'd go back to the old makefile based
system and remove Cabal from everywhere except building of the library
packages.
Manuel
PS: Just for some more collateral damage. Did anybody
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Simon Marlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This means we still get to use 'make', we still get to use the .cabal
files as metadata, but the build system is more private to GHC, more
extensible, and hopefully more understandable and modifiable.
This is essentially the same
Friends
| I see more and more workarounds for workarounds for an unmaintainable
| (and unusable) build system, and after the latest discussions about
| git vs. darcs, maintaining GHC-specific branches of libraries etc.,
| I think I'll just drop maintainership from all GHC-related OpenBSD
|
Moving this side point to the ghc users list...
Ashley Yakely wrote:
What is an orphan instance, and why do we care about them?
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
They are documented in the GHC manual
http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/separate-compilation.html#orphan-modules
A metacomment:
As a lurker, and a reader of other languages' mail groups, I just wanted to
complement you GHC folks on the quality of your discussion. You're discussing
an issue that people clearly have strong opinions about, yet you've all
remained polite and respectful and kept the
Hello Simon,
Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 5:46:59 PM, you wrote:
GHC needs core libraries without which it cannot be built. It is
obviously highly desirable that a developer can build GHC with just
one VCS, which suggests that the core libraries should be in git too.
But those same core
Norman Ramsey wrote:
At the time of the wonderful GHC Hackathon in Portland, where the GHC
API was first introduced to the public, I urged Simon PJ to consider
taking ghc --make and generalising it to support other languages.
I still think this would be a good project.
As well as supporting
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:59:37AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
Well, at least the Makefile creation was a step (the first step?)
into the wrong direction, IMHO. I'll run a GHC build to get some
of those generated Makefiles and followup on cvs-ghc, but for a
starter, Cabal shouldn't know
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:29:03PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
Basically, the .cabal file is just converted into some other format
that may be included by another Makefile.
Oops! I again read your (SimonM's) proposal on changing Cabal and
the GHC build system in exactly this way. Sorry for
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian, I completely agree with you. I love the darcs vcs model, too.
However, we have three discussions here:
(1) Do we want darcs vcs model?
Except Thomas Schilling, who seems to be dead set to get
15 matches
Mail list logo
