[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: merge wip-haskell?
Re: merge wip-haskell?
Thu, 6 Aug 2020 06:45:39 -0700
Nice! Sounds good to me. There are a couple other bits of work I’d like to see
make it in.
I believe there was also some work being done to de-duplicate flags sent to gcc
sent by ghc (this was the only thing keeping stack from building).
I hope that can make it in, too!
If there is any way we can bump the default ghc to 8.8.x, that would be
excellent, too. I think something like that makes sense on staging though.
Thanks for working on it!
On Aug 6, 2020, at 1:14 AM, Ricardo Wurmus <email@example.com> wrote:
wip-haskell contains commits that do a number of things aimed to reduce
the closure of packages:
1) make the “out” (and “lib”) output independent from “doc”
2) add a “doc” output to more packages
3) add a “static” output for all Haskell packages containing the “.a” files
4) change ghc-pandoc (and ghc-pandoc-citeproc) to use static linking
Number 1 required some smelly hackery: the generated configuration file
is edited to remove the “haddock-html” field. One unfortunate effect of
doing this and moving the .haddock files is that there are now
complaints about unresolvable links in generated documentation. I don’t
know if we can avoid this, but it seems like a small price to pay for
independent “doc” outputs. (Otherwise we’d have to download huge “doc”
outputs even if we don’t want them.)
Number 3 required circumventing bug 41569.
Number 4 is by far the ugliest change of them all. In order to
statically link packages we need to add all the “static” outputs of all
Haskell inputs *and* the “static” outputs of *their* Haskell inputs.
This is not easily accomplished, so I ended up using “package-closure”
on all direct inputs, and then filtered the result to packages with
names starting with “ghc-”. If there was a more appropriate tool I’d
use it, but I don’t think it exists.
The result is a much reduced closure for ghc-pandoc and all packages
using it (such as R markdown). We should probably rename “ghc-pandoc”
to “pandoc”, while we’re at it, because now the package contains the
I suppose we could change this so that “ghc-pandoc” is the usual library
package with a new “pandoc” package inheriting from “ghc-pandoc”. I’ll
give that a try soon.
I’d be happy to hear your comments about all of this, and I’m looking
forward to merging this branch into “master” soon.
Re: merge wip-haskell?, Jakub Kądziołka, 2020/08/07
- merge wip-haskell?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/08/06
- Re: merge wip-haskell?,
John Soo <=
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Timothy Sample, 2020/08/07
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/08/07
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Timothy Sample, 2020/08/09
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/08/12
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/08/13
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/08/15
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Timothy Sample, 2020/08/17
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ludovic Courtès, 2020/08/24