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

[Nicolas Pouillard]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:43:17 +0100, Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org> wrote:
> 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" :-)

I would use git branches not directories for this.

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard
http://nicolaspouillard.fr