The next step

[Manuel M. T. Chakravarty]

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

> > > 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. 
> 
> The problem with this is, the Hugs & NHC guys don't want the GHC build
> system, and I don't want to rewrite our build system to do the same
> stuff it already does (and likely the Hugs & NHC guys wouldn't like the
> results anyway :-).  We are doomed to multiple build systems I'm afraid.

I am just worrying that this will put off potential library
authors or at least lessen their motivation to make the
library portable.

Cheers,
Manuel