[arch-haskell] Upgrading to monad-control-0.3

Peter Hercek phercek at gmail.com
Tue Jan 3 23:39:00 CET 2012

On 01/03/2012 10:50 PM, Magnus Therning wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 09:19:40PM +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> [...]
>> cabal supports installing multiple versions of the same packages so this
>> should be pretty easy to do the same.
> Well, one of the things that cabal doesn't do is attempt to wire in
> the package docs into the system-wide index.html file.  Not impossible
> to solve by any stretch of the imagination, but it just goes to show
> that it requires more thought and work than changing the name of a
> package in a PKGBUILD.
>>> What would the purpose of providing two versions of some packages
>>> be?  Just to tick the has-haskell-platform box, or is there more
>>> value to it?
>>> What packages should be built using the -hp packages?  If any,
>>> should we try to do anything to avoid the diamond dependency
>>> problem?
>> The purpose is wider than this. Having a second version of a package
>> (P, V1, V2), might enable to build a whole set of packages which
>> requires P>V1 while another set requires P≤V1.
> It would also risk causing diamond dependency problems among the
> packages in [haskell].
Well, I would say this is a problem for people who not upgrade enough 
when their dependencies bring two different versions of the same package in.

It looks like people who want newer versions may rather maintain their 
own habs tree and probably forget anything haskell related from 
At least, I plan to do so if I decide to move to ghc 7.4.1 sooner than 
archlinux community. I'm mostly behind, but I may get ahead of archlinux 
this one time.
It would be a bit easier if we would have ghcDependency pacman group.

Is there a way to ask pacman for all locally installed packages from a 
given source (i.e. one of [core]/[extra]/[community]/...)?
E.g. a query like "get all locally installed packages which arrived from 
[extra] or [community] and contain string haskell in name or description".

>> Again, as long as we can push the authors to upgrade their packages
>> this is fine but we cannot assume this will always be the case.
> True.
Maintainers of haskell packages in [extra] and [community] do not seem 
to respond here. Google search indicates that there is not much haskell 
related discussion in arch-dev-public (I'm not a subscriber so I do not 
know for sure). Is there some other list where to get reaction from 
[extra]/[community] haskell maintainers?

Providing packages (which are old in [extra]/[community]) also in 
[haskell] repository would mitigate this problem a bit. Users just need 
to ensure they have [haskell] before [extra]/[community] in pacman.conf. 
Or just put everything in [haskell].


More information about the arch-haskell mailing list