Suggestion re altering the build system

[Manuel M T Chakravarty]

Simon Marlow wrote,
> Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
>> I don't quite understand why (2) is much easier to implement and 
>> having a tag a week in the main tree marking a buildable state seems 
>> quite attractive to me.  Anyway, Option (2) is fine, too.
> 
> For (2) I was thinking we could just add a target in the top-level 
> Makefile that runs 'darcs push' for each of the repos, and invoke that 
> as a step from buildbot.  It's a bit simpler than having to invent a tag 
> name, tag each repo and push the tags.
> 
> If instead we had a new repo for each snapshot as per Simon PJ's 
> suggestion, I would do it like this: after the initial darcs-all pull, 
> tar up the whole tree.  If the build succeeds, scp the tarball to 
> darcs.haskell.org and unpack it in the right place.  The snapshot repos 
> would be partial, but that's hopefully not a problem.  Again this can 
> all be a target in the top-level Makefile invoked via BuildBot. (my 
> builds have passwordless SSH access already because I upload the 
> binary/source distributions to haskell.org).
> 
> Andy's staging repo idea is interesting, but I think it's more work than 
> the above two strategies, so we should see if the easy way is sufficient 
> first.
> 
>> However, just http://darcs.haskell.org/ghc-2007-02-09 isn't good 
>> enough.  We need a consistent set of ghc repo and core packages.
> 
> Yes - I was assuming that we'd snapshot the core packages too (but not 
> the extra packages).

Ok, sounds good.

Manuel (who didn't get his ghc to re-build even after make distclean yesterday 
and now pulls todays patches wondering whether its going to be any better, or 
whether he has to pull - once again - a completely new tree of the repo *sigh*)