Re: Hugs' build system

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
>
> 	http://darcs.haskell.org/darcsweb/darcsweb.cgi?r=parsec;a=summary

Exactly this "bit of extra effort" is unclear to me, so I'd prefer if somebody 
else would do the conversion.

Cheers,
   S.