darcs patch: Explicitly use base-4 and syb package. (GHC 6.10 only?)
Sun Jun 21 19:28:35 PDT 2009 coreyoconnor@gmail.com * Explicitly use base-4 and syb package. (GHC 6.10 only?) When compiling using GHC 6.10 the base-4 and syb packages must be added. I think this needs to be dependent on the version of GHC used?
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. What was the specific thing that relied on base 4 out of curiosity? 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. 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. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ - http://notanumber.net/
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
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:16:52AM -0700, Corey O'Connor wrote:
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?
Ah, the included replacement for 'Typeable.h' should have been included. ideally I will replace the empty definitions with ones that use 'standalone deriving' at some point. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈ - http://notanumber.net/
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM, John Meacham
What was the specific thing that relied on base 4 out of curiosity?
The specific reason I had to include base-4 and syb was due to the error: Could not find module `Data.Generics.Instances': it is a member of package base-3.0.3.0, which is hidden While the error message implies base 3 should be used, "member of package base-3..", I decided I wanted JHC to compile against base-4 (Perhaps unnecessarily?) and instead added base-4 and syb (Which contains Data.Generics.Instances). I recall trying to just use base 3 and using that to compile JHC. I think (Gee I should of taken notes...) the reason this failed was due to other missing dependencies. Perhaps Control.Exception dependencies. And I found it easier to just use base-4 instead. Cheers, Corey O'Connor
participants (3)
-
Corey O'Connor -
coreyoconnor＠gmail.com
-
John Meacham