On 14/08/2008, at 18:01, Simon Marlow wrote:
Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
But that is precisely my (other) point. A lot of that work is
really unnecessary and could be done by Cabal since it only or
mostly depends on the package information. Instead, it is
implemented somewhere in Distributi
On 14/08/2008, at 06:32, Duncan Coutts wrote:
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 22:47 +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
Again, I'm not arguing against a build system written in Haskell. I'd
just like it to be completely separated from Haskell's packaging
system. In particular, "polluting" a package descrip
Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
But that is precisely my (other) point. A lot of that work is really
unnecessary and could be done by Cabal since it only or mostly depends
on the package information. Instead, it is implemented somewhere in
Distribution.Simple and not really usable from the outside.
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 22:47 +1000, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
> Again, I'm not arguing against a build system written in Haskell. I'd
> just like it to be completely separated from Haskell's packaging
> system. In particular, "polluting" a package description with build
> information seems wr
On 13/08/2008, at 20:34, Simon Marlow wrote:
Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
Of course there should be a standard build system for simple
packages. It could be part of Cabal or a separate tool (for which
Cabal could, again, act as a preprocessor).
GHC is a special case: we already need a build sy
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 11:34 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Cabal has two parts: some generic infrastructure, and a "simple" build
> system (under Distribution.Simple) that suffices for most packages. We
> distribute them together only because it's convenient; you don't have to
> use the simple b
Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:11:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I propose we do this:
- Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat it as
part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
complete with build rules, we generate a Makefile
Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
Of course there should be a standard build system for simple packages.
It could be part of Cabal or a separate tool (for which Cabal could,
again, act as a preprocessor).
GHC is a special case: we already need a build system for other reasons.
I agree. I just don'
On 13/08/2008, at 17:47, Simon Marlow wrote:
Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 12/08/2008, at 20:11, Simon Marlow wrote:
- Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat
it as
part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
complete with build rules, we generat
Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
On 12/08/2008, at 20:11, Simon Marlow wrote:
- Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat it as
part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
complete with build rules, we generate a Makefile that just
has the package-speci
On 12/08/2008, at 20:11, Simon Marlow wrote:
- Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat it
as
part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
complete with build rules, we generate a Makefile that just
has the package-specific metadata (list of mod
Duncan Coutts:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:11 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
I propose we do this:
- Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat
it as
part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
complete with build rules, we generate a Makefile that
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:11:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> I propose we do this:
>
> - Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat it as
>part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
>complete with build rules, we generate a Makefile that ju
> Simon PJ and I had a talk about the build system earlier today, I thought
> I'd float the idea we discussed...
> I propose we do this:
>
> - Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat it as
> part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
>
Malcolm Wallace wrote:
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This means we still get to use 'make', we still get to use the .cabal
files as metadata, but the build system is more private to GHC, more
extensible, and hopefully more understandable and modifiable.
This is essentially the sam
Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This means we still get to use 'make', we still get to use the .cabal
> files as metadata, but the build system is more private to GHC, more
> extensible, and hopefully more understandable and modifiable.
This is essentially the same approach that nhc98
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:11 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> I propose we do this:
>
> - Extract the code from Cabal that generates Makefiles, and treat it as
> part of the GHC build system. Rather than generating a Makefile
> complete with build rules, we generate a Makefile that just
>
Simon PJ and I had a talk about the build system earlier today, I thought
I'd float the idea we discussed (I should admit that the idea was mine,
lest Simon PJ think I'm attributing bad ideas to him :-). This is not
completely thought through, but I'm pretty sure a solution exists along
these
18 matches
Mail list logo
