Hugs' build system
sven.panne at aedion.de
Sun Feb 25 12:19:55 EST 2007
On Sunday 25 February 2007 17:48, Ross Paterson wrote:
> Most of the Hugs packagers have been using version numbers like 200609
> for some time now, so we ought not to move to small numbers.
Hmmm, so what is your exact suggestion for our numbering scheme for released
versions and snapshot versions?
> For releases, I think Hugs should move away from fetching snapshots of
> libraries and tools from repositories, and use tarballs of numbered
> releases instead, now that we have a home for those. For library
> development, I find it convenient to share a single copy of the library
> sources between GHC and Hugs builds.
Using released packages only for Hugs releases is a good thing, although GHC
and nhc98 are not doing it currently (at least not via their scripts, I
suspect that there is some manual intervention). I am not exactly sure how to
handle this: Should we have a table of explicit package versions to get, or
is there some canonical URL for the latest released version of a package?
And how exactly should the sharing work? And what about nhc98?
> > * I think that Hugs should finally be moved to darcs instead of CVS,
> > the current mix of version control systems is a bit obscure and we need
> > darcs for the libraries, anyway. I have no former experience in doing
> > this conversion, but I think others on this list have, so I'd prefer not
> > doing this for myself (or at least get some hint/tricks/... from others
> > who have done it before).
> No objection, but I think it takes a bit of extra effort to make the
> history look nice, e.g. check
Exactly this "bit of extra effort" is unclear to me, so I'd prefer if somebody
else would do the conversion.
More information about the Cvs-hugs