[arch-haskell] keeping in sync

[Ramana Kumar]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org>wrote:

> > This are my suggestions:
> >
> > 1. Magnus keep a [haskell-base] repository. This MUST be an Arch repo
> > in sync with a github repo.
> > 2. Both repositories (Arch and git) should be available for
> > maintainers of other repository.
> > 3. Maintainer of [haskell-web] (me) MUST update it's repo to keep in
> > sync with base in a reasonable time.
> > 4. After this time a “global maintainer” (Magnus, Ramana, me, whoever)
> > can grab all packages from both repositories and put them in a new
> > one: [haskell]
> > 5. Only [haskell] is intended for end users.
> >
> > A “reasonable time” could be 3 days. I saw that Magnus updates the
> > repo on Wednesday and on Saturday/Sunday: so before the next update
> > [haskell-web] should be in sync.
> >
> > I developed [haskell-web] in a way that it will not duplicate packages
> > from [haskell]: I use them as DistroPkg. Updating is easy with
> > `cbladmin` [^1], there's no need to modify `cblrepo`, maybe you could
> > merge (and develop) some ideas from there. But this is not the main
> > point. The main point is to be in sync, or else I'm just wasting my
> > time, as [haskell-web] will never be really useful.
>
> The big piece that's missing above is how to handle failures to
> upgrade a package caused by a dependant not allowing the upgrade.  Do
> we hold off the base-test repo then?
> I currently upgrade everything I can in one transaction, what if one
> of the packages requires holding back due to a dependant.  Would that
> require a partial roll-back in the base-test repo?
>

I don't understand the issue here. The only requirement is that the
[haskell-base] Arch repo and github repo are always in sync with each other.

I don't think a change to haskell-base necessarily needs to be only version
updates, there might be rollbacks if they are necessary. But whatever
changes are made to haskell-base, eventually haskell-web and other haskell-
repos will be made to work with it (in a reasonable time), and then when a
good state is reached, [haskell] itself can be updated. So it's always in a
good state. It might mean waiting longer for updates to make their way from
hackage to [haskell].



> It's questions like these that I don't have a good answer to.  And
> yes, both situations have occurred in the past.  They both cause a bit
> of work (though not so much if they are caught already at 'clbrepo
> updates' time).
>
> /M
>
> --
> Magnus Therning                      OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4
> email: magnus at therning.org   jabber: magnus at therning.org
> twitter: magthe               http://therning.org/magnus
>
> I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have
> C++ in mind.
>      -- Alan Kay
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/arch-haskell/attachments/20121215/4b9ca6cb/attachment.htm>