Discussion: Hadrian's defaults

Ben Gamari ben at well-typed.com
Fri Mar 15 17:28:21 UTC 2019

Moritz Angermann <moritz.angermann at gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Arnaud,

I second everything that Moritz said. Having spent countless hours
fighting other projects' "non-traditional" build systems in the past, my
heart fills with dread whenever I see a project trying to be "clever"
with autoconf. Inevitably such cleverness ends up being a source
poorly-documented, unpredictable, and at times broken behavior which
inevitably complicates the task of building the project in any
non-trivial configuration (for instance, cross-compilation).

We should keep in mind that users and packagers, not GHC developers, are
the primary audience of GHC's build system. For their sake we should
strive to keep GHC's build system as close to the usual
configure/make/make install workflow as possible.

In fact, I have at times wondered whether when we switch to Hadrian as
our primary build system we should ship our source distributions with a
stub makefile to build and run hadrian, allowing downstreams to treat
the distribution as a normal autotools-based package.


-  Ben

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20190315/3b983a8e/attachment.sig>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list