Tamar,
thanks so much for the backstory and the tickets. I’ll go dig down this
path a bit more.
Cheers,
Moritz
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 5:31 PM, Phyx wrote:
> Hi, Just leaving my two cents feel free to ignore..
>
> > I almost suggested that this had to be the reason for the back-compat
> design
Hi, Just leaving my two cents feel free to ignore..
> I almost suggested that this had to be the reason for the back-compat
design
You're right, but not for backwards compat of Hadrian vs Make, but for
compat with RTS versions.
I could be wrong, but my understanding is the current design in Make
> On Feb 10, 2021, at 8:50 AM, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
>
> build with hadrian, and then continue using make with the artifacts
> (partially) built by Hadrian
I almost suggested that this had to be the reason for the back-compat design,
but I assumed I had to be wrong. I also agree this is
build with hadrian, and then continue using make with the artifacts (partially)
built by Hadrian
I agree this is a non-goal.
Simon
From: ghc-devs On Behalf Of Moritz Angermann
Sent: 10 February 2021 13:32
To: Richard Eisenberg
Cc: ghc-devs
Subject: Re: Stop holding hadrian back with
My understanding of this backwards compat logic is that it's only there to
allow you to do stuff like:
build with hadrian, and then continue using make with the artifacts
(partially) built by hadrian. I think
this is a horrible idea in and onto itself, even if I can somewhat see the
appeal as a ga
This sounds very reasonable on the surface, but I don't understand the
consequences of this proposal. What are these consequences? Will this break
`make`? (It sounds like it won't, given that the change is to Hadrian.) Does
this mean horrible things will happen if I use `make` and `hadrian` in t
