Hi Matthias, Picking up this thread.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 11:21 AM Matthias Kilian <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 11:14:47PM -0700, Greg Steuck wrote: > > Looks like we can't easily generate haddock on i386 with ghc 8.10.2. It > > simply wants more RAM than the platform permits. The highest ulimit -d > > is 3145728. Even then I get: > > > > haddock: out of memory (requested 1048576 bytes) > > gmake[1]: *** [compiler/ghc.mk:310: > compiler/stage2/doc/html/ghc/ghc.haddock] Error 251 > > > > Should I split the port into multi-package and limit -haddock to amd64? > > Would it be an option to just don't generate the GHC docs on i386 > but still build a single package (including the haddock binary)? > That would keep things simpler (no multi packages), and we should > still be able to generate haddock-docs for other hs-packages on > i386. It could be done with a pkg/PFRAG.no_i386 listing all the > haddock-generated files and adding a > > %%no_i386%% > > in main pkg/PLIST. > > The build time distinction in the Makefile could than be done with > > HADDOCK_DOCS-amd64 = YES > HADDOCK_DOCS-i386 = NO > > ... > > echo HADDOCK_DOCS=${HADDOCK_DOCS-${ARCH}} >> ${WRKSRC}/mk/build.mk > > in post-patch. > I believe I implemented this in https://github.com/blackgnezdo/ports/commit/3707bd2f19dd4479f4a215aadf33afed36a55f23 Not entirely sure if it is correct as I only ran it through some incremetal experiments and complete builds are still underway. Please let me know if you prefer this approach to the -haddock package split I've been running with before. The upside is a simpler setup of not using multi-packages. The downside is the bigger package/installation on amd64. Thanks Greg
