kili: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 04:17:59PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > [...] > > As for Cabal - we had a thread on cvs-ghc last week, and as I said there > > we'd love to hear suggestions for how to improve things, including wild > > and crazy ideas for throwing it all away and starting again. However, as > > I explained, there are good reasons for the way things are done now, the > > main one being that the build system for packages is not written twice. > > Well, at least the Makefile creation was a step (the first step?) > into the wrong direction, IMHO. I'll run a GHC build to get some > of those generated Makefiles and followup on cvs-ghc, but for a > starter, Cabal shouldn't know anything about implementation-specific > internal build systems; instead it should rely only on it's own > metadata. Implementation-specific stuff (such as how to run the > compiler) should be supplied by the implementation, not by Cabal. > > I see more and more workarounds for workarounds for an unmaintainable > (and unusable) build system, and after the latest discussions about > git vs. darcs, maintaining GHC-specific branches of libraries etc., > I think I'll just drop maintainership from all GHC-related OpenBSD > ports until the GHC build system chaos settles down a little bit.
Ian, please read this. The inability to build GHC reliably is a problem. Can someone with a plan please describe what measures are in place to ensure GHC emerges buildable, and the tree regains the status of a tree that *does not break*? -- Don _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
