please don't!
we still need ghc!
https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/331918309916295168
;-)
Matthias Kilian(k...@outback.escape.de) on 2013.05.07 23:50:25 +0200:
> Spoiler: I'm not talking about Haskell but about ghc here.
>
> I'd like to remove lang/ghc from the ports tree, because it's
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 07:43:57AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote:
> Even though I am using GHC almost daily, I agree it is a pile of junk. I
> still wonder how you are going to manage to keep Haskell but not having
> GHC anymore.
I won't. What I meant with "this is not about Haskell but about
ghc" was
On 2013/05/08 11:04, Lars Engblom wrote:
> How are other distros/OS doing? Do we really need to bootstrap each
> time? Could not the old working binary be saved to some kind of
> semiofficial porttools.tgz used on the computer for building all the
> ports?
This is what we do at present, the port u
How are other distros/OS doing? Do we really need to bootstrap each
time? Could not the old working binary be saved to some kind of
semiofficial porttools.tgz used on the computer for building all the
ports? We would then have two flavors of GHC: The normal one installed
to /usr/local/ and one
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 08:00:42AM +0200, Dawe wrote:
> To lower the impact of ghc we could remove all hs-ports that don't need
> patching
> and work out of the box with cabal.
The biggest current problem is that there'll be a flag day when we
switch to 64 bit time_t. After this day, neiter an in
On May 07, 2013 23:50, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> Spoiler: I'm not talking about Haskell but about ghc here.
You mean keeping hugs and remove everything else? Because I don't see how hugs
could build all the packages that make use of haskell2010 and all the
ghc-extensions.
The utrecht compiler isn't
Even though I am using GHC almost daily, I agree it is a pile of junk. I
still wonder how you are going to manage to keep Haskell but not having
GHC anymore.
As far as I know there are only two Haskell compilers actively developed
except for GHC: UHC and JHC. The other implementations are not
mai
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> Spoiler: I'm not talking about Haskell but about ghc here.
To ask a possibly dumb question, what are our other options for
Haskell at the moment? E.g., it looks like x11/xmonad depends on
lang/ghc, so does removing ghc mean removing xmonad
