2014-04-01 14:03 GMT+02:00 Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com>: > Indeed, there is no reason not to use Ian et al's Builder stuff. It's one of > the > options. But it depends on a critical evaluation of what the advantages and > disadvantages of different approaches are
I found Ian's buildbot an appealing alternative as it does a full build, including testing, and uploads the resulting binaries to a common place where anybody can access them (but it can be configured to do almost anything). The builders may be configured individually from a single (Haskell-language) configuration file and they are run on various volunteer-supplied systems so it is also distributed. I use this to keep track of the status of the FreeBSD builds to make my work easier on building the releases and maintaining the associated ports in the FreeBSD Ports Collection, while offering regular developer snapshots for the users. This approach also allows me to control and maintain the builder environment too as it may require minor or major changes and fixes over time that I can do myself as a FreeBSD developer. In the past, there were cases where the build was failing due to bugs in the kernel or the userland, so this is not purely about GHC itself (unfortunately). In my humble opinon, there are merits for the Travis-based Continuous Integration, so as for the daily snapshot building on each supported platform. I do not care if it is not Haskell-based or it is hosted at a central place with individual Virtual Machines for each platform -- until I can keep doing what I have been doing for 4 years now. _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
