patch applied (ghc): Add the msysCORE*.tar.gz tarball to the list of tarballs we unpack

[Simon Marlow]

On 19/11/2009 14:39, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:40:17PM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> On 19/11/2009 11:54, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 09:46:00AM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>>> On 19/11/2009 00:44, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>>>>> Wed Nov 18 11:55:23 PST 2009  Ian Lynagh<igloo at earth.li>
>>>>>      * Add the msysCORE*.tar.gz tarball to the list of tarballs we unpack
>>>>>
>>>>>        M ./configure.ac +2
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, do we really have to ship MSYS bits with GHC too?  I'd really like
>>>> to avoid doing this if possible.  This is just for Perl, right?  Why
>>>> can't we carry on using a mingw build of Perl?
>>>
>>> The perl we're using is the only one I could see on
>>>       http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/files/
>>>
>>> It's possible there's one in another tarball, but if so I don't know how
>>> to find it short of downloading and unpacking them all. Also, I'd be
>>> surprised if the tarball contents overlapped.
>>
>> Why not just use the Perl that we shipped with GHC in the past?  I don't
>> know where it originally came from, but I think we've been using the
>> same binary for years now, with each new distribution copying it out of
>> the previous one :)
>
> If we do that then we'll be stuck with perl 5.6.1 forever, and this way
> we have a consistent set of programs designed to be used together, and
> we know how to upgrade should we need to.
>
> If you think we should go back to the old perl then I don't feel that
> strongly about it, but I think using the msys/mingw tarballs will be
> least painful in the long-run.

I'm worried that if we put an MSYS DLL into the distribution it will 
give us more headaches in the future, as it might be incompatible with 
MSYS DLLs on the system already.  The nice thing about mingw binaries is 
that they're self contained.

I know that we don't normally put the mignw/ directory on the PATH, and 
Windows executables are supposed to look first in the same directory as 
the binary for their DLLs, so in theory this shouldn't be a problem. 
Still, it gives me a bad feeling.

Our Perl-using days are numbered anyway.  As we discovered, a validate 
run doesn't even use Perl.  So I doubt we'll ever need to upgrade it.

I vote for sticking with the Perl we have - we could always replace it 
with an MSYS one later if needs be.

Cheers,
	Simon