Jens Petersen <[email protected]> writes: > I have been packaging ghc for a long time... > > In older times I think it was recommended to first do a (quick) build > of a new version of ghc (with the previous version) and then to do a > (perf) rebuild of the new version against itself. > In fact I am still building ghc this way for Fedora: though it seems > like this is overhead nowadays...? > (I think one major reason was to get stable ABI hashes for the core > library packages.) > > These days should I just do a single default or perf build of a new > ghc version against a previous stable release, or does it still make > sense to continue to build in two steps like I have been doing? > Any pros or cons? > Indeed; GHC's build system already performs a two-stage bootstrapping so it shouldn't be necessary to do multiple builds yourself.
Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
