Hi guys, I was wondering if you have worked towards a schedule for bsd.haskell.mk. If not, do you guys have plans for this? I will be incorporating my GHC infrastructure changes by March 8th. To re-iterate, these changes will include splitting GHC port into lang/ghc-6-8 and lang/ghc-6-10 and creating new lang/ghc meta-port. This way people and legacy software can refer to older versions of GHC if need be. Regards. -- Samy Al Bahra [http://www.repnop.org/]
Hi all,
it was a long time after my last email, but I was going through the
Gorgoroth of my tests, and now I see the Sun.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 04:55:38PM -0500, Samy Al Bahra
I was wondering if you have worked towards a schedule for bsd.haskell.mk. If not, do you guys have plans for this? I will be incorporating my GHC infrastructure changes by March 8th.
I'm working at the integration of ghc-6.10.1 into the bsd.haskell.mk, and I think that all this will be ready on the 28th February.
To re-iterate, these changes will include splitting GHC port into lang/ghc-6-8 and lang/ghc-6-10 and creating new lang/ghc meta-port. This way people and legacy software can refer to older versions of GHC if need be.
I don't know <(:{?} I'll have to check the haskell port situation, and I'll do it; but, at this moment, I think that, perhaps, it's not worth splitting GHC port. If some software isn't lined up the last version of ghc, it's better, for me, to brand it as broken; there is too much alfa/beta software around the Haskell world and the mark 6.10 is a good boundary. Giuseppe Pilichi aka Jacula Modyun ---- http://www.lefweb.uniss.it/index.php?sez=6&arg=6&txt=1&id=4820
Jacula Modyun writes: [...]
I don't know <(:{?} I'll have to check the haskell port situation, and I'll do it; but, at this moment, I think that, perhaps, it's not worth splitting GHC port. If some software isn't lined up the last version of ghc, it's better, for me, to brand it as broken; there is too much alfa/beta software around the Haskell world and the mark 6.10 is a good boundary.
What he means is to create something equivalent of the current python/ruby ports. Anyone who needs ghc-6.8.x can use ghc-6.8 port and similar for ghc-6.10. But since there are some ports which are having issues with ghc-6.10.x, so keep ghc-6.8.x as default ghc until all ports started to compile with ghc-6.10, and ghc-6.10 for those who are interested in trying out new GHC. -- Ashish SHUKLA
Jacula,
I'm working on the GHC things. :-)
Regards.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Ashish SHUKLA
Jacula Modyun writes:
[...]
I don't know <(:{?} I'll have to check the haskell port situation, and I'll do it; but, at this moment, I think that, perhaps, it's not worth splitting GHC port. If some software isn't lined up the last version of ghc, it's better, for me, to brand it as broken; there is too much alfa/beta software around the Haskell world and the mark 6.10 is a good boundary.
What he means is to create something equivalent of the current python/ruby ports. Anyone who needs ghc-6.8.x can use ghc-6.8 port and similar for ghc-6.10. But since there are some ports which are having issues with ghc-6.10.x, so keep ghc-6.8.x as default ghc until all ports started to compile with ghc-6.10, and ghc-6.10 for those who are interested in trying out new GHC.
-- Ashish SHUKLA
_______________________________________________ FreeBSD-haskell mailing list FreeBSD-haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-haskell
-- Samy Al Bahra [http://repnop.org]
participants (3)
-
Jacula Modyun -
Samy Al Bahra -
wahjava.ml＠gmail.com