[Freebsd-haskell] Comments on use of bsd.haskell.mk

[Ashish SHUKLA]

Gabor PALI writes:
> Hello Ashish,

Hi Gabor.

> You wrote:
>> Apologies for being unre{sponsive,achable} in the last few days.
>> 
> Anyway, you approved my port updates very quickly :)

Fortunately, I was submitting a new port when I recieved your PR :).

> Hm, your results seem to be promising!  However, I would recommend you
> to use the D_NAME and D_NAME-VER plist_subs where applicable for the
> easier maintenance.  

I didn't get what you're trying to say. If you're talking about
following line, then yes I should have used a variable there like
%%D_LIBDIR_REL%%.

> @dirrm lib/utf8-string-0.3.4

> It would be also nice to have a make(1) target (in bsd.haskell.mk) for
> generating pkg-plist files.

Yes, a make target generating pkg-plist will be great idea. I think that
is not just only useful for haskell[1]. BtW, is that even predictable
prior to installation what files are going to be installed ? Although as
of now documentation generated by the port is automatically tracked by
bsd.haskell.mk. So no need to explicitly mention it in the pkg-plist.

>> Now, I've a (C)omment, (Q)uestion and (S)uggestion regarding that
>> bsd.haskell.mk w.r.t. to the above port stuff: 
>> 
>> Q. As clear from the below output, the updated ports installs libraries
>> in the ${PREFIX}/lib/${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}/${GHC_VER} instead of
>> the older ${PREFIX}/lib/${GHC_VER}/cabal. Is this convention going to be
>> followed from now onwards, hmm... ?) [..]
>> 
> I think we should agree on this.  I do not have any objections, however
> until now, I have followed your ${PREFIX}/lib/${GHC_VER}/cabal solution
> :)  I tried your converted utf8-string port, and I found that HsColour
> could use an automatic versioning scheme in the Mk file.  (Because it
> refers to version 1.10, but now HsColour is at version 1.10.1, so this
> resulted an error.)  Something like this:

> HSCOLOUR_VERSION?= `HsColour -version | cut -d ' ' -f2-`

> I am not sure whether it is a right thing, but it helped.

There is a patch already present on that PR[2] which updates bsd.haskell.mk.

>> S. The best way to test out the bsd.haskell.mk is by porting more and
>> more ports to it. So I recommend we should port existing ports and new
>> ports to the bsd.haskell.mk way and push to the 'infrastructure' branch
>> (or any other special branch created for the purpose).
> Okay, I will try to adapt some of my ports to this approach.

Cool, I will also try porting some of ports.

>> And until bsd.haskell.mk makes into the official ports tree, we should also keep
>> porting new/updated ports in the current way. Although this will be a
>> bit time consuming, but this will be helpful in testing bsd.haskell.mk
>> and improving it wherever it lacks. And whenever bsd.haskell.mk goes
>> into the tree, the haskell ports can also be submitted.
>> 
> It might be worth a try at least.

Yes, that way we will be able to rectify and finetune the bsd.haskell.mk.

>> And IIRC, Samy mentioned on the IRC that he is running GHC 6.10.1 on his
>> "centrino" box. Samy if you need some testers, could you please push
>> your port to the repo so we can start working with it. And also will I
>> be able to install multiple versions of GHC side-by-side, hmm...?
>> 
> I will contact the guy who submitted a port update for GHC about a month
> ago [1][2], maybe he could be also involved (and interested in it).

Cool.

References:
[1]  http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2008-December/051708.html
[2]  http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/126012
-- 
Ashish SHUKLA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/freebsd-haskell/attachments/20090202/ec08a369/attachment.bin