Gabor PALI writes:
Hello Ashish,
Hi Gabor.
You wrote:
Apologies for being unre{sponsive,achable} in the last few days.
Anyway, you approved my port updates very quickly :)
Fortunately, I was submitting a new port when I recieved your PR :).
Hm, your results seem to be promising! However, I would recommend you to use the D_NAME and D_NAME-VER plist_subs where applicable for the easier maintenance.
I didn't get what you're trying to say. If you're talking about following line, then yes I should have used a variable there like %%D_LIBDIR_REL%%.
@dirrm lib/utf8-string-0.3.4
It would be also nice to have a make(1) target (in bsd.haskell.mk) for generating pkg-plist files.
Yes, a make target generating pkg-plist will be great idea. I think that is not just only useful for haskell[1]. BtW, is that even predictable prior to installation what files are going to be installed ? Although as of now documentation generated by the port is automatically tracked by bsd.haskell.mk. So no need to explicitly mention it in the pkg-plist.
Now, I've a (C)omment, (Q)uestion and (S)uggestion regarding that bsd.haskell.mk w.r.t. to the above port stuff:
Q. As clear from the below output, the updated ports installs libraries in the ${PREFIX}/lib/${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}/${GHC_VER} instead of the older ${PREFIX}/lib/${GHC_VER}/cabal. Is this convention going to be followed from now onwards, hmm... ?) [..]
I think we should agree on this. I do not have any objections, however until now, I have followed your ${PREFIX}/lib/${GHC_VER}/cabal solution :) I tried your converted utf8-string port, and I found that HsColour could use an automatic versioning scheme in the Mk file. (Because it refers to version 1.10, but now HsColour is at version 1.10.1, so this resulted an error.) Something like this:
HSCOLOUR_VERSION?= `HsColour -version | cut -d ' ' -f2-`
I am not sure whether it is a right thing, but it helped.
There is a patch already present on that PR[2] which updates bsd.haskell.mk.
S. The best way to test out the bsd.haskell.mk is by porting more and more ports to it. So I recommend we should port existing ports and new ports to the bsd.haskell.mk way and push to the 'infrastructure' branch (or any other special branch created for the purpose). Okay, I will try to adapt some of my ports to this approach.
Cool, I will also try porting some of ports.
And until bsd.haskell.mk makes into the official ports tree, we should also keep porting new/updated ports in the current way. Although this will be a bit time consuming, but this will be helpful in testing bsd.haskell.mk and improving it wherever it lacks. And whenever bsd.haskell.mk goes into the tree, the haskell ports can also be submitted.
It might be worth a try at least.
Yes, that way we will be able to rectify and finetune the bsd.haskell.mk.
And IIRC, Samy mentioned on the IRC that he is running GHC 6.10.1 on his "centrino" box. Samy if you need some testers, could you please push your port to the repo so we can start working with it. And also will I be able to install multiple versions of GHC side-by-side, hmm...?
I will contact the guy who submitted a port update for GHC about a month ago [1][2], maybe he could be also involved (and interested in it).
Cool. References: [1] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2008-December/051708.html [2] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/126012 -- Ashish SHUKLA