Skip to content
New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Document how to use the github version of process #106

Closed
dnadales opened this issue Oct 30, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

Document how to use the github version of process #106

dnadales opened this issue Oct 30, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@dnadales
Copy link

I don't know if something should be said about how to use the latest version of process. I've tried the following:

packages:
- '.'
- location:
    git: https://github.com/haskell/process.git
    commit: 2fb7e739771f4a899a12b45f8b392e4874616b89
  extra-dep: true

But somehow stack needs to run autoreconf before building. Maybe there is a standard way of doing this (which I don't know), but if it doesn't some information in the README would be great.

@snoyberg
Copy link
Collaborator

snoyberg commented Nov 1, 2017

I'm not sure if there are downsides to including the autoreconf-generated files inside this repo. A solution you can try right now is forking this repo on Github, running autoreconf yourself, push the changes to your fork, and then referring to that commit from your stack.yaml.

@dnadales
Copy link
Author

dnadales commented Nov 3, 2017

I guess that by running autoreconf and putting those files in the git repo I loose the possibility of compiling in multiple platforms, don't I?

@snoyberg
Copy link
Collaborator

snoyberg commented Nov 5, 2017

I don't know the details of what autoreconf does, but I believe—based on the fact that the generated files end up in the sdist tarball—that it will still be cross platform.

@snoyberg
Copy link
Collaborator

I just implemented a new feature for Stack which will automatically generate the configure scripts as needed: commercialhaskell/stack#3598. This should address your concern more fully.

@snoyberg
Copy link
Collaborator

Given that support for this is merged into Stack master and there's a working short-term solution with the fork, I'm closing as resolved.

@dnadales
Copy link
Author

This is great. Thanks a lot!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants