Am Sonntag, 8. Oktober 2006 15:07 schrieb Duncan Coutts: > [...] That would be very much appreciated. If you feel like making release > candidate tarballs for them all then the Gentoo Haskell packaging people > will endeavour to test them. [...]
I don't know about the latest and greatest release plans for the tools, so I'll leave this to SimonM. > One gotcha to look out for with haddock is that the tarball needs to > contain the pre-processed .hs files produced by happy and alex. At the > moment Cabal doesn't automate that at all so it needs to be done > manually. Otherwise we end up with haddock needing alex & happy. We > noticed this problem in the haddock-0.8_rc1 release. Is this really needed? To build all tools and GHC, one only needs a working bootstrapping GHC, then Happy => Alex => Haddock => GHC can be built in this order. Or am I missing something? > This also reminds me: a week or so ago when I was visiting Chalmers, we > had a hacking session where we added new ByteString '%wrapper's to alex. > I'll try to tidy up the patches and send them in. I'll try and get some > performance numbers too. That would be nice, although I never had any performance problems with Alex. But performance is always good... ;-) Cheers, S. _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
