Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Sebastian Benoit (benoit-listsfb12.de)
Date: Wed May 08 2013 - 17:07:44 CDT
we still need ghc!
Matthias Kilian(kilioutback.escape.de) on 2013.05.07 23:50:25 +0200:
> Spoiler: I'm not talking about Haskell but about ghc here.
> I'd like to remove lang/ghc from the ports tree, because it's fucked
> up beyond repair:
> - configure runs ghc-pwd (instead of just pwd) to determine the current
> working directory. ghc-pwd is a program written in Haskell. In the
> past, when ghc-pwd appeared, configure first compiled that ghc-pwd
> program, which wouldn't work unless you already have a working
> Haskell compiler installed.
> - after replacing all occurrences of ghc-pwd by /bin/pwd, the build
> fails because it runs ghc-stage2 from the bootstrapper. (Note
> that binaries for ghc-pwd as well as ghc-stage2 and much more are
> included in the ghc sources and/or the bootstrapper for this
> - bootstrapping without a pre-installed ghc still doesn't work, and
> upstream doesn't careA
> - the ghc compiler is not deterministic, because function names (in
> hs-libraries) depend on what's already built. So if you start a
> build of ghc, interrupt it and restart it, you may end up with binary
> incompatible libraries to an uninterrupted build. This is also the
> reason for all those package bumps we do on hs-* ports.
> - with every new major ghc release, interfaces break. For example, last
> summer I had to fix various "Num doesn't imply EQ" issues as
> well as a lot of general typesystem issues. Imagine annual changes
> to the C programming language that require not only recompiliton
> but rewrites!
> So let's get rid of this crap.