[arch-haskell] Road to binary repository

Magnus Therning magnus at therning.org
Sat Oct 23 15:59:51 EDT 2010

On 23/10/10 20:17, Peter Simons wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
>  > For the moment you can always create a fork to share your patches
>  > with Remy directly. There's no need to wait for an official repo.
> you are right, there is no need to create an official repo for the build
> tool chain yet. Is there any particular reason why you feel we should
> wait?

No real reason, just that I get the impression on the mailinglist that
you are
both still working out kinks.  That may of course be a misconception on my
part :-)

>  > This would take the place of the current habs repo.
> Yes, I agree. We could import Remy's work into a branch of habs, say
> "new-master", and merge that into "master" eventually.
>  > I think it's best to create a new repo for it though, any suggestion
>  > for the name?
> Do we really need another repository? Personally, I feel it's sufficient
> to create a branch in haps.

Well, if I understand what you are doing, then the branch would be
disconnected from the existing master branch.  That would mean we have two
unconnected branches in one repo.  That thought makes me cringe ;-)

>> Just let me know when you think there is a repo that is in good enough
>> state to make it official.
> I think Remy's system is ready for that. I tried to build my own
> arch-haskell repo with his toolchain, and it worked like a charm in less
> than an hour. His script just ties the various ArchHaskell devtools
> together; it's quite simple and straight-forward. Based on this experience,
> I feel the system is good and ready to be used.

Ah, that's a good report.

>>>  - Cabal package name,
>>>  - Cabal package version,
>>>  - ArchHaskell package name, and
>> I thought this was dealt with automatically by cabal2arch. Is that
>> functionality not good enough to keep on using?
> Yes, I completely agree. cabal2arch is getting the job done fine. We
> will probably have to extend it, though, so that we can pass an
> ArchLinux pkgrel number that it ought to use to generate the PKGBUILD
> file. The alternative is that we patch those files in a separate phase
> after cabal2arch has run, but my impression is that it would be cleaner
> to let cabal2arch generate the proper version directly.

Yes, the format of the PKGLIST file has to influence the creation of the
PKGBUILD (pkgrel and possibly configuration/compilation flags).

I'm about to push some changesets that adds command line parsing to
cabal2arch, including support for subcommands which means cabal2arch


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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/arch-haskell/attachments/20101023/ef72ba16/signature.bin

More information about the arch-haskell mailing list