patch applied (ghc): Use mingw tarballs to get mingw on Windows
kili at outback.escape.de
Sun Oct 4 15:30:47 EDT 2009
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 05:12:28PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > I'm worried that every time we update gcc we'll get an immortal copy in
> > darcs/patches, which will significantly increase the size of the
> > snapshots over time...
> This patch was 16M, and I have 152M of patches.
Size doesn't matter ;-)
Anyway, having any kind of tarballs in the repository just feels
plain wrong, *especially* for the mingw case. If there are special
binaries required on certain systems, just provide them outside of
the repository and tell the people where to download them.
But I'm also not very happy with all those other tarballs (especially
libraries/tarballs, but also libffi/tarball). It may be convenient
for some reason, but it's a pita if you have to want to apply some
changes to the sources, because you've to maintain separate patches
instead of just darcs recording them, or (in case of libffi or
libgmp) use a system-wide installed version and change that one.
[I know that libgmp is special here, because of that weird MacOSX
problem, beyond that it's not different from other dependencies]
I didn't closely follow the discussions about how to deal with
dependencies from hackage, but imho including tarballs is worse
than the former approach (keeping branches of hackage libraries).
... remove comments around quotes
-- simon at openbsd.org in a CVS commit message.
More information about the Cvs-ghc