Re: packaging options for Mac OS X
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:56:00PM -0800, Mark Lentczner wrote: Outstanding question is what should this framework be called? I would like to continue to call it GHC.framework, but change the version to something like 7.0.1+HP-i386, I think it ought to be called Haskell-Platform.framework. [*] The binary GHC distribution could be - built by the GHC team, and asking them for a tarball (as Duncan suggested) I do make framework-pkg to build the OS X installer, but it's essentially a black box to me. We're happy to accept patches that make this also produce a bindist, though. Now that we have the Haskell Platform, perhaps we should stop making GHC OS X installers, and only make plain old unix bindists. Thanks Ian ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
How to activate DEBUG in Data.HashTable?
Hello, with a large Agda development, I have a reproducible segmentation fault that I have been able to localise to the serialisation (Agda.TypeChecking.Serialise.encode), which heavily relies on Data.HashTable. Now I find that Data.HashTable (from GHC-7.0.1) has a CPP-enabled DEBUG version --- is there a ``proper'' way to activate this? Possibly even so that it can be added ex-post to an existing installation? (So I don't have to re-install all packages.) mk/ways.mk says that the ``debug'' way only affects the RTS... Wolfram ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Re: packaging options for Mac OS X
Ian Lynagh: On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:56:00PM -0800, Mark Lentczner wrote: Outstanding question is what should this framework be called? I would like to continue to call it GHC.framework, but change the version to something like 7.0.1+HP-i386, I think it ought to be called Haskell-Platform.framework. The GHC.framework inside the Haskell Platform should still be the GHC.framework. The rest of the Haskell Platform might be in a different framework (or further, more specific frameworks identifying the individual components inside). A Mac OS X framework is *not* a unit of distribution. It is more like a library with associated meta data and tools. You wouldn't rename glibc to, say, ubuntulibc just because you happen to get it via an Ubuntu install. [*] The binary GHC distribution could be - built by the GHC team, and asking them for a tarball (as Duncan suggested) I do make framework-pkg to build the OS X installer, but it's essentially a black box to me. We're happy to accept patches that make this also produce a bindist, though. Now that we have the Haskell Platform, perhaps we should stop making GHC OS X installers, and only make plain old unix bindists. Especially given that the Haskell Platform is released many months after GHC, please keep making GHC OS X installers. At the very least, that will lead to more GHC installs and *testing* on OS X between the GHC release and Haskell Platform release. Manuel ___ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
