[arch-haskell] Layout of ABS tree for Haskell packages?

[Magnus Therning]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 13:18, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> github
>> • 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).

Indeed, that is exactly it, just much better put than what I managed!

>>> 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).

I would accept any of those, or possibly "stable"/"bleedingedge" :-)

No, I don't know anywhere to host the binary packages and I don't have
any leads to follow for it either.  Any ideas anyone?

/M

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