please don't! we still need ghc!
https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/331918309916295168 ;-) Matthias Kilian(k...@outback.escape.de) on 2013.05.07 23:50:25 +0200: > Spoiler: I'm not talking about Haskell but about ghc here. > > I'd like to remove lang/ghc from the ports tree, because it's fucked > up beyond repair: > > - configure runs ghc-pwd (instead of just pwd) to determine the current > working directory. ghc-pwd is a program written in Haskell. In the > past, when ghc-pwd appeared, configure first compiled that ghc-pwd > program, which wouldn't work unless you already have a working > Haskell compiler installed. > > - after replacing all occurrences of ghc-pwd by /bin/pwd, the build > fails because it runs ghc-stage2 from the bootstrapper. (Note > that binaries for ghc-pwd as well as ghc-stage2 and much more are > included in the ghc sources and/or the bootstrapper for this > purpose). > > - bootstrapping without a pre-installed ghc still doesn't work, and > upstream doesn't careA > > - the ghc compiler is not deterministic, because function names (in > hs-libraries) depend on what's already built. So if you start a > build of ghc, interrupt it and restart it, you may end up with binary > incompatible libraries to an uninterrupted build. This is also the > reason for all those package bumps we do on hs-* ports. > > - with every new major ghc release, interfaces break. For example, last > summer I had to fix various "Num doesn't imply EQ" issues as > well as a lot of general typesystem issues. Imagine annual changes > to the C programming language that require not only recompiliton > but rewrites! > > So let's get rid of this crap. > > Ciao, > Kili > --
