The next step

[Manuel M. T. Chakravarty]

"Simon Marlow" <simonmar@microsoft.com> wrote,

> > Don't libraries need their own build system anyway if they
> > are to be portable?
> 
> I imagined putting the standard libraries in a single source repository.
> By the "standard libraries", I mean loosely speaking those libraries
> which are going to be distributed with most compilers (i.e. like the
> current hslibs setup).  The libraries could have a standalone build
> system, but at least for GHC this would mean duplicating most of the
> fptools build system in the libraries tree (because we need to support
> ways, GHCi .o files, DLLs, split object files etc. etc.), but NHC and
> Hugs require a much more minimal build system.

Technically, I think, it might be cleaner to have build
system for the libraries that works with all compilers,
rather than different build systems for different
compilers. 

Cheers,
Manuel