| > Nevertheless, I don't think I am alone. For example, not long ago I met | > Andy Gill in #ghc trying to find a version of the head that's fairly | > recent and still builds. | > | > So, let me make a suggestion. Could the changes to the build system | > maybe done on a branch of the repos and be integrated into the live tree | > in larger intervals? Then, we'd have the pain in bursts, but less | > often. I appreciate that this is not entirely trivial as you have to | > branch the packages along with the ghc repo, but the current situation | > is extremely frustrating. | | I feel your frustration, stability of the HEAD does seem to have been a problem | of late.
Beyond what Simon has said, I'd like to be clear that we regard it as a priority for a clean build to go through, at least far enough to have a working compiler and libraries (even if some tests fail). If that does not happen for you, do not wait long before complaining (politely, of course). Ian, who is the person who's being doing most work on the build system of late, can't fix things if he doesn't know they are going wrong. And maybe he'll see a common pattern emerge! Do not simply suffer in silence. It's best of all if you can offer a definite cause, but even the mere fact that "darcs pull; make" didn't work (plus the tail of its output) is useful information. Within reason we want "make" to rebuild whatever is necessary. When the build system itself is changing that's hard to ensure, but we can help each other by sharing problems and solutions. Furthermore, even if you find a solution, it's good to explain what happened and how you fixed it. Ian may be able to use that info to make the build system more robust, or at least to produce a more helpful error message. Suggestions for how the build system itself could be improved to be more robust would also be good. Simon _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
