[Freebsd-haskell] GHC 6.12.1 Port

[Jacula Modyun]

Hi  Ashish,

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:02:33AM +0530, Ashish SHUKLA <wahjava.ml at gmail.com> wrote:

> Related to bsd.haskell.mk, I'm proposing to defer working on
> bsd.haskell.mk. But instead I want to propose something else, like
> Makefile.haskell which in concept is similar to Makefile.xpi and doesn't
> require fiddling with ${PORTSDIR}/Mk/bsd.port.mk files.
> 
>
> So Makefile.haskell shall take care of this by gathering all common
> definitions at one place, and then every port is only required to include
> Makefile.haskell like XPI ports do. I'll post an initial Makefile.haskell in a
> day or two. What do you think about this idea ?
 
I think this is a good idea. My first idea about bsd.haskell.mk was to put
it into lang/ghc directory, but it exist a problem: this system isn't scalable.
Actually you could have some problems with the expansion of some variables
defined into a Mk/*.mk file.

> In addition to that, I'm having a issue with latest haddock port with GHC
> 6.12.1. It depends on 'mtl' module which isn't provided by GHC anymore. So I
> created a port for 'mtl' and that port depends on 'haddock' for documentation
> generation. This is kind of circular dependency and can only be resolved if
> mtl is built with NOPORTDOCS flag set. So how is user going to build 'haddock'
> port, if mtl isn't installed and he doesn't have NOPORTDOCS set. Should
> 'haddock' port install 'mtl' port in SLAVE mode like GHC installs haddock and
> other ports. Or there is any other neat way of doing it ?

Yes, it exists a different way of doing it; that one I used for lang/ghc. An
inplace installation of haddock into mtl/work directory, but I don't know
if this is a neat way also for a simple port with a short time installation.

Jacula Modyun