[arch-haskell] Layout of ABS tree for Haskell packages?
remyoudompheng at gmail.com
Tue Oct 12 08:18:27 EDT 2010
On 2010/10/12 Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:04, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The idea being than work-in-progress is kept is trunk, and repo is a
>> snapshot of PKGBUILDs which are building correctly. I think your
>> layout is okay too. Do you know if binary packages can be hosted
>> somewhere ? My idea is that if a package can be built successfully,
>> some script would be able to upload this binary package to a FTP
>> server, as well a backuping the PKGBUILD from the "aur" area to the
>> "bin" area so that PKGBUILDs there match the binary packages.
> Am I correct in guessing that the layout you describe is held in SVN?
> This is how I'm thinking of using git:
> • archhaskell/habs is the official ABS tree, the aim is to always have
> it in a completely working condition
> • work-in-progress is kept in individual contributors' own clones
> • sharing of work-in-progress between contributors' happen in whatever
> way they see fit, the archhaskell/habs clone is not involved at all
> • when a contributor is happy with a change a changeset is either sent
> to the arch-haskell mailing list, or a pull request is created on
> • the changeset can then be applied, or denied, by a member of the
> github archhaskell group
> I should emphasise that the same procedure should apply to members of
> the github archhaskell group as well.
Even with the method you describe, there is a real difference between
"bin" and "src": the first one is a *distribution*. That means that
not only does it not include all packages, but it might necessary to
hold packages to an older version to keep it the whole thing working.
But people who use the source distribution might want to use latest
version if they are usable, because they don't necessarily the
dependencies which would otherwise be broken by the updates (such a
situation would not be acceptable in the binary repo).
>> The "bin" area is the "ABS" tree, while the "aur" area is the "AUR" tree.
> The "bin" area would be the collection of source packages that we
> decide to build and provide in binary form, the "aur" area would be
> the collection of source packages that we continue to upload to AUR.
> Maybe it's better to call the latter "src" instead, since we've been
> talking about dropping use of AUR completely.
We could call it something like "main" and "extra" or
"main"/"unsupported" ? Do you know where binary packages can be
hosted. As I said, we need something like 400MB for 1000 packages (but
my computer which did the build is currently broken).
More information about the arch-haskell