GHC kit for Windows
gk at ninebynine.org
Tue Feb 3 16:30:21 EST 2004
At 15:34 03/02/04 +0000, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>| > I note that the GHC kit for Windows includes some of the (I presume)
>| > MinGW
>| > binutil components, but does not include 'ar'. I find that 'ar' is
>| > needed
>| > for building HaXml. May I suggest that 'ar' also be included in
>| > kit?
>| Adding 'ar' is clearly trivial, but the tools that GHC installers
>| include aren't meant to be used by the public, only by GHC
>| to avoid having to rely on external tools when compiling&
>| linking (e.g., 'gcc' and 'ld' don't work as-is, but need the right
>| -B setting). I'm not strongly against it, but adding other dev
>| tools does have potential support costs
>I'm inclined to agree with Sigbjorn here. Where would we stop? GHC
>does include some Mingw stuff "in its belly", but you are not supposed
>to know or care how GHC does its work. You certainly aren't expected to
>invoke those tools directly. If you want anything more than GHC, I
>think the best thing is to get Mingw or Cygwin or SFU.
Fair point. My counter argument would be that the 'ar' utility is (I
think) needed to create a GHC package (from just Haskell source files). Am
I right about this? Maybe a useful touchstone might be: would be it
appropriate to be able create a GHC package using *just* the GHC command?
OTOH, if the GHC package structure is to be displaced by the new library
infrastructure project, then I'd fully agree with you.
Here's a possible simple compromise: in the documentation of GHC packages,
include a link to the MinGW kit  that is needed to build a package on
windows? (It took me some time to track down what I needed.)
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users