Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

One-component configure #3644

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

One-component configure #3644

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

ezyang
Copy link
Contributor

@ezyang ezyang commented Jul 30, 2016

Described in: ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#4

./Setup configure now takes an argument to specify a specific
component name that should solely be configured.

Most of the gyrations in Configure are all about making it so that
we can feed in internal dependencies via --dependency. I dropped
the package name match sanity check to handle convenience library
package name munging. I also had to make register/copy unconditionally
install internal libraries; otherwise you can't refer to them
from later builds.

Also a miscellaneous refactor: convenience libraries are printed with a
"header" stanza now (not really a stanza header).

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@cs.stanford.edu>
@ezyang ezyang force-pushed the pr/component-configure branch 2 times, most recently from 3f3fc09 to c5db313 Compare July 30, 2016 09:38
@phadej
Copy link
Collaborator

phadej commented Jul 30, 2016

As it's in ghc-proposals, we have to wait what it says before merging this?

@ezyang
Copy link
Contributor Author

ezyang commented Jul 30, 2016

Well, Cabal is not within the ghc-proposals mandate, and even if it were, there is currently no timeline the process becomes "official". So yes I would like to get commentary, but I also think we can informally decide when it's good enough to go in.

@phadej
Copy link
Collaborator

phadej commented Jul 30, 2016

As we added it there, let's wait ~2 weeks (the usual discussion time on proposals in e.g. libraries), otherwise it will look like "look we decided to do this way, now it's already done".

I like the idea of proposal, but as you posted it there, I'd give people opportunity to comment on it. Sorry that it will delay this PR.

@ezyang
Copy link
Contributor Author

ezyang commented Jul 30, 2016

Two weeks is fine. I am well used to the rebased branches on top of rebased branches workflow for extended periods of time ;)

@ezyang ezyang force-pushed the pr/component-configure branch 2 times, most recently from 83814b5 to f72be75 Compare July 30, 2016 21:01
Described in: ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#4

./Setup configure now takes an argument to specify a specific
component name that should solely be configured.

Most of the gyrations in Configure are all about making it so that
we can feed in internal dependencies via --dependency.  I dropped
the package name match sanity check to handle convenience library
package name munging.  I also had to make register/copy unconditionally
install internal libraries; otherwise you can't refer to them
from later builds.

Also a miscellaneous refactor: convenience libraries are printed with a
"header" stanza now (not really a stanza header).

Signed-off-by: Edward Z. Yang <ezyang@cs.stanford.edu>
@ezyang ezyang force-pushed the pr/component-configure branch from f72be75 to 91da0be Compare July 30, 2016 21:56
@ezyang
Copy link
Contributor Author

ezyang commented Aug 11, 2016

Since this commit is rolled up in #3662 I'm going to close this; review that PR instead.

@ezyang ezyang closed this Aug 11, 2016
@23Skidoo 23Skidoo deleted the pr/component-configure branch July 19, 2017 00:21
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants