On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Meacham
Cool. thanks for the patches!
Yeah, I am trying to maintain both ghc-6.8.x and 6.10.x compatibility. however, I don't actually have a 6.10 system to test on so I have to rely on bug reports. From what I hear, it is mainly the packages that differ, so perhaps we can just maintain two PACKAGES lines in the Makefile for now and comment out the one we don't need.
Makes sense! I wasn't sure how to best make the PACKAGES parameter depend on the ghc version. I'm an automake newbie though I presume there is a way to have the value depend on a configuration value.
What was the specific thing that relied on base 4 out of curiosity?
I'll unpull the patch to figure out exactly. However i think it was just that if hide-all-packages is used then even the base package is hidden. So any import of a module from base has to come from somewhere and I just decided to use base-4 instead of base-3.
I want to keep 6.8.2 around as that is what comes with the distributions used for amazon ec2 instances. firing up a high-cpu instance for regression testing of jhc is quite nice.
I have an AMI that has GHC 6.10.3 and cabal-install already setup up. Not sure how to make it distributable but I'll let you know once I do.
For the curious, right now I am working on better (as in fully transparent) cross-compilation support for jhc. there has been signifigant interest in using jhc to compile apps for things like iPhones. So you can expect something in a few days on that front.
Sweet! In addition to some other nice features of JHC, that's what peeked my interest in JHC. On another topic: Currently my build of JHC fails when trying to build the containers library due to missing functionality in the Data.Typeable module. Is this a known issue? Cheers, Corey O'Connor