Proposal: better library management ideas (was: how to checkout proper submodules)

Roman Cheplyaka roma at
Mon Jun 10 07:32:38 CEST 2013

* John Lato <jwlato at> [2013-06-10 07:59:55+0800]
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Roman Cheplyaka <roma at> wrote:
> >
> > What I'm trying to say here is that there's hope for a portable base.
> > Maybe not in the form of split base — I don't know.
> > But it's the direction we should be moving anyways.
> >
> > And usurping base by GHC is a move in the opposite direction.
> Maybe that's a good thing?  The current situation doesn't really seem to be
> working.  Keeping base separate negatively impacts workflow of GHC devs (as
> evidenced by these threads), just to support something that other compilers
> don't use anyway.  Maybe it would be easier to fold base back into ghc and
> try again, perhaps after some code cleanup?  Having base in ghc may provide
> more motivation to separate it properly.

After base is in GHC, separating it again will be only harder, not
easier. Or do you have a specific plan in mind?


More information about the ghc-devs mailing list