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

Magnus Therning magnus at therning.org
Tue Oct 12 05:33:06 EDT 2010

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:23, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng at gmail.com> wrote:
> Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org> wrote:
>> Thanks.  I'll push ahead with it, despite the relative lack of
>> responses so far... it's only been half a day or so though so maybe
>> there'll be more comments later on.  In any case, nothing I'm doing is
>> irreversible :-)
>> Yes, I think once we have an ABS tree the same old established tools
>> can be used in that tree as in other ABS trees.  I still see a use for
>> cabal2arch though when it comes to keeping up with hackage, but it has
>> to be changed and improved a little bit to make it fit better.
> What do you mean ? cabal2arch seems to fit exactly its role, it
> translates a single cabal file to a single PKGBUILD, I would rather
> say the helper programs in haskell-archlinux have to be changed.

Oh, don't get me wrong, some parts are already perfect.  The kind of
things I was thinking of was

• modify cabal2arch to accept the location of the local copy of the
ABS tree so that the new PKGBUILD is created in the correct place
• modify cabal2arch to be aware of the layout of the ABS tree
(especially I expect that we would want some way of separating binary
and source packages)
• modify cabal2arch in the directions that Don has already pointed
out, i.e. to remove the static, compiled-in lists (e.g. naming of C
packages for dependencies), instead those lists should be kept outside
the binary (maybe even make it possible to get them from a URL)

I hope that makes my statement clearer.


Magnus Therning                        (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus@therning.org          Jabber: magnus@therning.org
http://therning.org/magnus         identi.ca|twitter: magthe

More information about the arch-haskell mailing list