The archive http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/6.6/ghc-6.6-src-extralibs.tar.bz2 does not contain the files ControlPoint.hs and Domain.hs from directory libraries/OpenGL/Graphics/Rendering/OpenGL/GL/ These files are listed by the binary distribution http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/6.6/ghc-6.6-i386-unknown-linux.tar.bz2 Personally I don't miss these files, but they are of course missing from distributions I (and possibly others) made. How imported are these files? They are also not listed in libraries/OpenGL/openGL.cabal. Cheers Christian
Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2006 11:37 schrieb Christian Maeder:
The archive http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/6.6/ghc-6.6-src-extralibs.tar.bz2 does not contain the files ControlPoint.hs and Domain.hs from directory libraries/OpenGL/Graphics/Rendering/OpenGL/GL/
If I see things correctly, the 6.6 extralibs contain the version 2.1 of the OpenGL package, i.e. the stuff currently in http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/unstable/OpenGL/, at least I hope so. :-/
These files are listed by the binary distribution http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/6.6/ghc-6.6-i386-unknown-linux.tar.bz2
Personally I don't miss these files, but they are of course missing from distributions I (and possibly others) made.
How imported are these files? They are also not listed in libraries/OpenGL/openGL.cabal.
The current HEAD (i.e. http://darcs.haskell.org/packages/OpenGL/) contains the bleeding edge version of the OpenGL package, and the version number has already been bumped to 2.2 there (although the version is not yet finished) to avoid confusion. Due to some refactorings, this version has the modules you've mentioned, and they are in the .cabal file, too. So if there is something wrong, it must be the packaging of the 6.6 distributions, but not the OpenGL package itself. To be honest, I don't fully understand the workflow for building the "official" GHC distributions currently. In former times, the whole tree, including libraries, had a CVS tag, so things were crystal-clear. But due to the new flexibility of making packages independent, we suffer from versionits now, it seems... Some comments/explanations from the packagers are highly welcome. Cheers, S.
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 08:55:28AM +0100, Sven Panne wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2006 11:37 schrieb Christian Maeder:
The archive http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/6.6/ghc-6.6-src-extralibs.tar.bz2 does not contain the files ControlPoint.hs and Domain.hs from directory libraries/OpenGL/Graphics/Rendering/OpenGL/GL/
If I see things correctly, the 6.6 extralibs contain the version 2.1 of the OpenGL package, i.e. the stuff currently in http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/unstable/OpenGL/, at least I hope so. :-/
These files are listed by the binary distribution http://www.haskell.org/ghc/dist/6.6/ghc-6.6-i386-unknown-linux.tar.bz2
This will probably have been made with whatever OpenGL was in darcs when the build was done (the binary distributions come from the nightly builds). The extralibs are not part of the GHC release, they are just sometimes bundled to make users' lives easier, so the GHC release is not tied to any particular version of the extralibs.
To be honest, I don't fully understand the workflow for building the "official" GHC distributions currently. In former times, the whole tree, including libraries, had a CVS tag, so things were crystal-clear.
GHC and the core libraries all have a "6.6 release" tag. One problem we do have is that if you get a library (core, extralibs or otherwise) from darcs on two different days then you might get two different libraries with the same version number. We should possibly do something like having only odd second components (e.g. version 2.3 but not version 2.4) in darcs repos so we can at least spot these unstable version numbers. Then to do a release you'd push the three patches Version=2.4; tag 2.4; Version=2.5 all at once. Thanks Ian
Am Freitag, 8. Dezember 2006 21:08 schrieb Ian Lynagh:
This will probably have been made with whatever OpenGL was in darcs when the build was done (the binary distributions come from the nightly builds). [...]
OK, so in a nutshell: Everything is fine with the binary releases, it can just be the case that different platforms might see different package versions of non-core packages. No big deal to upgrade/downgrade later, given our package system/Cabal.
We should possibly do something like having only odd second components (e.g. version 2.3 but not version 2.4) in darcs repos so we can at least spot these unstable version numbers. Then to do a release you'd push the three patches Version=2.4; tag 2.4; Version=2.5 all at once.
This makes sense, and it would be good if all packages in darcs.haskell.org/packages agreed on this numbering scheme. One minor question: Who will actually push those three patches and when? Cheers, S.
participants (3)
-
Christian Maeder -
Ian Lynagh -
Sven Panne