[arch-haskell] Re: What to do now?

Nicolas Pouillard nicolas.pouillard at gmail.com
Tue Oct 12 03:42:28 EDT 2010

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:28:05 +0100, Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org> wrote:
> On 08/10/10 22:14, Magnus Therning wrote:
> > Now that Don has decided to focus his Herculean powers in other directions I
> > wonder what people feel should be the plan for the future.
> > 
> > Do we try to fix up Don's tools and scripts so that they are more
> > conducive to
> > team work?
> > 
> > Do we give up on having all of Hackage in AUR and instead rely on tools like
> > bauerbill?
> > 
> > Do we try to do something like what Xyne suggested--set up a Haskell ABS and
> > publish pre-compiled packages in [arch-haskell]?
> Here's what I'd suggest based on the last few days' discussion:
> • Create an ABS-like tree for all hackage packages.
> • Populate it with the current versions of packages as found on AUR.
> • Keep the tree on github.
> This will allow us to, in the short term:
> • Distribute the work of keeping up with Hackage.
> • Still upload packages to AUR.
> In the longer term I'd like to evolve the tools to work with this setup.
>  At some point I'd love to see this:
> • Some advanced packages builders are able to work straight against the
> ABS-tree on github, e.g. bauerbill.
> • cabal2arch modified to work against a local version of the ABS-tree.
> • A tool capable of determining the reverse dependencies of packages
> kept in the ABS-tree (so that all packages depending on the updated one
> can be rebuilt).
> • An (official) repository for binary Haskell packages, maintained by a
> team of people.
> What do you think?

That's a great plan, I hope that we are not far from a binary repo, I would
be a big step forward. In some way, once cabal2arch has done its job and
that we have this ABS tree, tools should be the same than for others

Nicolas Pouillard

More information about the arch-haskell mailing list