On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 01:26:39PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > 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.
Most modules should be scattered in the ports tree with corresponding names. The oldest modules are in mk/ mostly for historic reasons. If I did the gcc stuff today, the module would probably be called lang/gcc ;)
