GHC 6.4 release candidates available (breakage on suse 9.2 x86
bstrand at switchmanagement.com
Wed Feb 23 18:17:23 EST 2005
Wolfgang Thaller wrote:
>> Thanks, good to know; I'll read through 10.2 more carefully. I didn't
>> think I'd need to cross-compile x86-linux to x86-linux.
> You don't need to - the recommended way is to download a binary version.
> If you don't like using binary distributions, then use it for
> bootstrapping only, i.e. use it to build a ghc of your choice and then
> delete it again. This is just like what you usually do when you install
> gcc on your box for the first time.
I originally tried the binary distribution but ran into library issues. That
is of course the obvious path to try, and try it I did. Rather than going
straight to installing deprecated libraries, I tried to provide some feedback
on ghc (especially since 6.4 RCs are out).
>> Would it be unreasonable to include the unregisterised .hc files with
>> a source distribution (or .hc files for "popular" platforms), so that
>> a Haskell novice such as myself could do a "./configure && make &&
>> make install"? If configure detected no ghc, perhaps it could do the
>> bootstrap automagically.
> Well, the contents of the .hc files heavily depend on the results of
> ./configure - so unregistered .hc files still have to be tailor-made for
> the target platform.
> As far as registerised .hc files for popular platforms go, I fail to see
> the point. In what way is bootstrapping from platform-specific .hc files
> superior to installing a binary (apart from the fact that it takes
> longer and looks cooler)? It would be like shipping GCC as a bunch of
> x86 .s files.
I have no concern whatsoever with the appearance of "coolness" (or lack
thereof). As stated above, I have no problem with installing a binary, but
that option didn't work out at first, so, ghc being free software, I tried to
compile it for my platform. When that failed, I decided to report back on my
difficulties, hopefully helping anyone who runs into (and googles for) the
same problem. (In fact at the moment I am doing exactly as you suggested,
making a "clean" build of ghc via the binaries, so as not to clutter up our
many Oracle boxen with (otherwise useless) backwards-compatibility readline
Regarding gcc, gcc binaries ship with or are available for every commonly used
platform (and most uncommonly used platforms too); ghc is not (yet) in this
position. I was fully aware of the parallel between distributing .s files
with gcc and .hc files with ghc when I made this suggestion. Not being
intimately familiar with ghc internals, I don't know how much work this is,
and whether the implementation cost exceeds the benefit (easier installation
for Haskell novices like me).
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users