Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
As far as I am concerned, building GHC is turning into a big mess. We
discussed ways to improve it again, BUT I'd rather not see it getting
any messier before it gets better. Hence, please let's have a complete
plan that we are convinced will work before making
On 11 Aug 2008, at 23:15, Don Stewart wrote:
Eric Mertens kindly did some experiments on the various git repos,
and servers, and approaches to serving.
* We're looking at >45 mins for a full history darcs get
of ghc, over http, from darcs.haskell.org.
* git clone of full ghc over http, from
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:46 AM, Manuel M T Chakravarty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Lynagh:
> Having two vcs for one project is bad. One reason to switch to git (I am
> told) is that people had problems with darcs on some platforms (windows and
> Solaris, for example). How is that going to b
On 12 Aug 2008, at 01:35, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Ah, good point! Changing ghc to git means *all* developers of boot
libraries need to use git *regardless* of what repo format the boot
libraries are in. After all, they need to validate against the
current ghc head before pushing.
| It is worth pointing out that I *never* validate against ghc head when
| I commit to the core libraries.
I think that's perfectly reasonable for the reasons you explain.
Simon
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
ht
Simon PJ and I had a talk about the build system earlier today, I thought
I'd float the idea we discussed (I should admit that the idea was mine,
lest Simon PJ think I'm attributing bad ideas to him :-). This is not
completely thought through, but I'm pretty sure a solution exists along
these
Matthias Kilian wrote:
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
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:11 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I propose we do this:
>
> - Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat it as
> part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
> complete with build rules, we generate a Makefile that just
>
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This means we still get to use 'make', we still get to use the .cabal
> files as metadata, but the build system is more private to GHC, more
> extensible, and hopefully more understandable and modifiable.
This is essentially the same approach that nhc98
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 08:17:50PM -0400, Norman Ramsey wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 06:56:23PM -0400, Norman Ramsey wrote:
> > >
> > personally I would much prefer to see money spent on making darcs
> > better, for reasons I won't repeat again.
>
> I missed them and wouldn't mind recei
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:10:31AM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
> On 12 Aug 2008, at 01:35, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> >Ah, good point! Changing ghc to git means *all* developers of boot
> >libraries need to use git *regardless* of what repo format the boot
> >libraries are in. After
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 14:29 +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2008, at 13:00, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > It's not clear to me that we've really bothered to find out. The last
> > evaluation in relation to ghc that I'm aware of was prior to the 2.0
> > release. My impression is that we've all
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:20:14AM +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
>
> To be honest, if you ask me, I'd go back to the old makefile based
> system and remove Cabal from everywhere except building of the library
> packages.
>
> Manuel
>
> PS: Just for some more collateral damage. Did an
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This means we still get to use 'make', we still get to use the .cabal
files as metadata, but the build system is more private to GHC, more
extensible, and hopefully more understandable and modifiable.
This is essentially the sam
Friends
| > 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
|
Ashley Yakely wrote:
>> What is an orphan instance, and why do we care about them?
Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> They are documented in the GHC manual
> http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/separate-compilation.html#orphan-modules
Thanks for the nice explanation there. Since yo
A metacomment:
As a lurker, and a reader of other languages' mail groups, I just wanted to
complement you GHC folks on the quality of your discussion. You're discussing
an issue that people clearly have strong opinions about, yet you've all
remained polite and respectful and kept the signal-to
Hello Simon,
Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 5:46:59 PM, you wrote:
> GHC needs "core libraries" without which it cannot be built. It is
> obviously highly desirable that a developer can build GHC with just
> one VCS, which suggests that the core libraries should be in git too.
> But those same core l
Suggestions like this are a great help for improving the user manual. Thank
you. I will fix.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:glasgow-haskell-
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yitzchak Gale
| Sent: 12 August 2008 16:48
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: GHC User
On 12 Aug 2008, at 15:46, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
It's unclear exactly what to do about this. The most plausible
possibility is to keep the core libraries that are shared with other
implementations in darcs as now, and mirror them in git for GHC
developers. That will impose pain on GHC deve
> > I see an increasing problem in that every community comes up with
> > their own package system, instead of reusing existing frameworks.
>
> That's because there are no usable existing frameworks.
I couldn't agree more. I have been working on this problem off and on
since 1993, and the
> Simon PJ and I had a talk about the build system earlier today, I thought
> I'd float the idea we discussed...
> I propose we do this:
>
> - Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat it as
> part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
>
Thomas Schilling wrote:
I encourage everyone to add useful tips and examples both from users who
already use Git and later on, once we have gathered more experience. I
believe that Git has some features which can improve our productivity
and I'd like this page to also collect tips how to do so
It seems that the -static flag serves a different purpose: according to the
GHC manual it forces the compiler use the static Haskell libraries, but the
resulting binary is still dynamically linked to the C libraries. What is the
correct flag to create a static binary? Thanks
Best Regards
Nicola
__
Norman Ramsey wrote:
> At the time of the wonderful GHC Hackathon in Portland, where the GHC
> API was first introduced to the public, I urged Simon PJ to consider
> taking ghc --make and generalising it to support other languages.
> I still think this would be a good project.
>
As well as suppor
tensor5:
>It seems that the -static flag serves a different purpose: according to
>the GHC manual it forces the compiler use the static Haskell libraries,
>but the resulting binary is still dynamically linked to the C libraries.
>What is the correct flag to create a static binary? T
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:59:37AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> >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
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:29:03PM +0200, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> Basically, the .cabal file is just converted into some other format
> that may be included by another Makefile.
Oops! I again read your (SimonM's) proposal on changing Cabal and
the GHC build system in exactly this way. Sorry for t
Duncan Coutts:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:11 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I propose we do this:
- Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat
it as
part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
complete with build rules, we generate a Makefile that
Simon Peyton-Jones:
| It is worth pointing out that I *never* validate against ghc head
when
| I commit to the core libraries.
I think that's perfectly reasonable for the reasons you explain.
Sorry, but I think the only reason its halfway acceptable is that
Malcolm didn't break the GHC bui
Ian Lynagh:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:10:31AM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
On 12 Aug 2008, at 01:35, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Ah, good point! Changing ghc to git means *all* developers of boot
libraries need to use git *regardless* of what repo format the boot
libraries are in. After
Ian, I completely agree with you. I love the darcs vcs model, too.
However, we have three discussions here:
(1) Do we want darcs vcs model?
Except Thomas Schilling, who seems to be dead set to get rid of
darcs, everybody who voiced their opinion seems to be in favour of the
darcs mod
On 12/08/2008, at 20:11, Simon Marlow wrote:
- Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat it
as
part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
complete with build rules, we generate a Makefile that just
has the package-specific metadata (list of mod
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian, I completely agree with you. I love the darcs vcs model, too.
> However, we have three discussions here:
>
> (1) Do we want darcs vcs model?
>
>Except Thomas Schilling, who seems to be dead set t
Hello Manuel,
Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 4:39:25 AM, you wrote:
> Well, its up to you whether you want to validate for other people, but
> I don't think that is the right policy. Everybody (including Malcolm)
> should validate.
as far as we have people validating patches for their platforms (I
Simon Marlow:
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
To be honest, if you ask me, I'd go back to the old makefile based
system and remove Cabal from everywhere except building of the
library packages.
I wouldn't object to dropping the use of Cabal for other tools in
the build tree; the reasons for
Ian Lynagh:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:20:14AM +1000, Manuel M T Chakravarty
wrote:
To be honest, if you ask me, I'd go back to the old makefile based
system and remove Cabal from everywhere except building of the
library
packages.
Manuel
PS: Just for some more collateral damage. Did any
Simon Peyton-Jones:
2. The version control system (VCS)
GHC needs "core libraries" without which it cannot be built. It is
obviously highly desirable that a developer can build GHC with just
one VCS, which suggests that the core libraries should be in git too.
But those same core libraries are
38 matches
Mail list logo
