Version control systems
marlowsd at gmail.com
Tue Aug 12 04:19:11 EDT 2008
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> As far as I am concerned, building GHC is turning into a big mess. We
> discussed ways to improve it again, BUT I'd rather not see it getting
> any messier before it gets better. Hence, please let's have a complete
> plan that we are convinced will work before making any more changes.
>> As for Cabal - we had a thread on cvs-ghc last week, and as I said
>> there we'd love to hear suggestions for how to improve things,
>> including wild and crazy ideas for throwing it all away and starting
>> again. However, as I explained, there are good reasons for the way
>> things are done now, the main one being that the build system for
>> packages is not written twice.
> Yes, we need cabal for packages because we don't want two build
> systems. However, this does not justify the use of Cabal outside of
> libraries/. Nobody explained to me why that was necessary. Why change
> all the rest of the build system. What is the benefit for the ghc project?
GHC is a package, just like any other. The GHC package was the main reason
we still had a lot of the old infrastructure for building packages still in
the build system, so there was a compelling reason to switch the compiler
itself to Cabal, at least.
It's true that this change wasn't all win. We gained in some places and
lost in others - the build system is more unfriendly to developers now, as
opposed to people just building GHC, and that really is something we need
> To be honest, if you ask me, I'd go back to the old makefile based
> system and remove Cabal from everywhere except building of the library
I wouldn't object to dropping the use of Cabal for other tools in the build
tree; the reasons for using it elsewhere are certainly not as compelling as
Ian, I realise this means backing out a lot of the work you've been doing
recently, and it would mean that we'd lose a lot of time in the runup to
6.10.1, but perhaps it's a step that we need to take to get us back on the
right track again?
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users