How would I use stack with a GHC 8.0.2 release candidate? On 13 September 2016 at 21:27, Christopher Allen <c...@bitemyapp.com> wrote:
> Stack is not your shell, a build script, or a Makefile. It already has > path management for the GHC installations it provisions and supports. > It is not Stack's job to mutilate your path to support external GHC > installations. > > Make a Makefile or add shortcuts to your bashrc to switch compilers. > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Paolo Giarrusso <p.giarru...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:05:44 PM UTC+2, Christopher Allen > > wrote: > >> > >> Stack users are moving away from enabling system installed GHCs by > >> default because it breaks the ease of enabling profiling for libraries > >> when you're using a Stack-installed GHC. > > > > > >> > >> I'm not sure why multiple system-installed GHCs needs to be supported > >> in addition to the GHC support Stack already provides. That's extra > >> work for...what? Stack isn't trying to compete with Nix. It's more > >> like a blend of rustup and cargo -- or Clojure's Leiningen. > > > > > > To clarify: I'm not proposing stack to install those GHCs, just to use > them. > > > > I think the extra work would be limited (calling GHC-X.Y.Z instead of > GHC) > > and has other technical advantages > > (https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/2433). Mind you, I'm > > willing to contribute the work and not asking anybody—I've just been > busy. > > > > Right now I have to modify the PATH every time I use GHC 7.8.4 because I > > needed to customize the build (I'm on OS X 10.11), but I still want GHC > 8 by > > default. > > > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Paolo Giarrusso <p.gia...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 9:47:20 PM UTC+2, Richard Eisenberg > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, many, for explaining better ways to interact directly with > GHC > >> >> after using a `stack setup`. Perhaps, then, all that’s stopping > someone > >> >> like > >> >> me from liking the ease of `stack setup` is a little missing PR (as > in, > >> >> public relations). I understand that many people want to keep GHC > >> >> cloistered > >> >> away to ease version swapping, but others (like me) want GHC > available > >> >> front > >> >> and center. > >> >> > >> >> Other minor points: > >> >> `stack env` does not work for me: my version of stack does not know > how > >> >> to > >> >> `env`. > >> > > >> > > >> > That's correct—stack env was a feature request. > >> > > >> > The warning on `stack ghci` doesn't happen usually, but I'd say > that's a > >> > bug > >> > (probably because it's a new install)? > >> > > >> > I use stack (and have contributed a bit recently), but I agree > there's a > >> > few > >> > things stack could do better for this workflow. > >> > > >> > And the transition has a rather annoying learning curve—stack ghci and > >> > stack > >> > ghc are not the same as ghci/ghc. I think that's on purpose to > support a > >> > project-based workflow, and it has upsides, but it's a transition > >> > pitfall. > >> > Lots of things *are* explained in > >> > https://docs.haskellstack.org/en/latest/faq/, but you do need learn a > >> > few > >> > things from scratch. > >> > > >> > You want stack exec ghc and stack exec ghci, and arbitrary options > >> > require a > >> > double dash `--` — use `stack ghc -- --version` or `stack exec -- ghc > >> > --version`. And I'm afraid the command syntax is mostly frozen by now. > >> > > >> > To support a compiler-based workflow, there are a few things planned—I > >> > opened an issue to collect them, starting from Simon Marlow's recent > >> > email: > >> > https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stack/issues/2546 > >> > > >> > BTW, a system-installed GHC already works if you stick to one (and > only > >> > build projects that need that). But I'd love to support multiple > >> > system-installed GHCs and being able to pick the one you need. > >> > > >> > As others already explained, giving access to stack-installed GHCs can > >> > be > >> > problematic—they're going to work, in part, exactly because you can't > >> > install in their package database. > >> > > >> > Having stack install system-wide GHCs would IMHO risk opening a can of > >> > worms—having working binaries for all Linux distros requires some > work, > >> > system installers would be harder and most users would dislike them. > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > >> > To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: > >> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >> > Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post. > >> > >> -- > >> Chris Allen > >> Currently working on http://haskellbook.com > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list > >> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to: > >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post. > > > > -- > Chris Allen > Currently working on http://haskellbook.com > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-community mailing list > Haskell-community@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
