On 2021/02/25 14:13, Matthias Kilian wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 08:26:43PM -0800, Greg Steuck wrote: > > Happily I can gradually work haskell ports over to the new infra without > > upgrading lang/ghc and then destroying and recreating the world. Maybe > > it would've been less work total to do a big bang, but hopefully this is > > easier to swallow in little bits. Any rollback is less of a pain should > > it have to happen. > > > > As a reminder, the eventual goal is to move every haskell binary port > > over to cabal.port.mk and thus deconstrain future upgrades of the ports > > and lang/ghc. > > This looks good, at the moment I'm test-building happy (will take > some hours, because some dependency of ghc had been updated, so my > machine is rebuilding it, too). > > > However, I'm not sure wether devel/cabal is the right place for > cabal.port.mk. Shouldn't modules-only files to be put into > infrastructure/mk? > > What do other ports people think?
We have the same for devel/cargo, lang/go, lang/python and others. For gcc the main module is in lang/gcc/8 but there's a helper in infrastructure/mk because it (sometimes) needs to select between different gcc versions. I'm fairly happy having it in the main ports tree, but if it is placed elsewhere then the others should probably move there too.
