Hugs' build system
ross at soi.city.ac.uk
Mon Feb 26 04:52:28 EST 2007
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 06:19:55PM +0100, Sven Panne wrote:
> On Sunday 25 February 2007 17:48, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > Most of the Hugs packagers have been using version numbers like 200609
> > for some time now, so we ought not to move to small numbers.
> Hmmm, so what is your exact suggestion for our numbering scheme for released
> versions and snapshot versions?
YYYYMM and YYYYMM.DD?
> > For releases, I think Hugs should move away from fetching snapshots of
> > libraries and tools from repositories, and use tarballs of numbered
> > releases instead, now that we have a home for those. For library
> > development, I find it convenient to share a single copy of the library
> > sources between GHC and Hugs builds.
> Using released packages only for Hugs releases is a good thing, although GHC
> and nhc98 are not doing it currently (at least not via their scripts, I
> suspect that there is some manual intervention). I am not exactly sure how to
> handle this: Should we have a table of explicit package versions to get, or
> is there some canonical URL for the latest released version of a package?
For releases, we'd want a table of versions; we'd also want that in the
More information about the Cvs-hugs