[arch-haskell] Future of arch-haskell.

Peter Hercek phercek at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 14:17:33 CET 2012

On 03/07/2012 05:28 AM, Xyne wrote:
> Haskell packages require topological rebuilds and that always seems to cause
> problems when a rebuild needs to be coordinated across 3+ repos with even more
> packagers.
+1 for one repository containing all ghc-dependent packages. And 
preferably remove them from the other repositories.

> In theory you could put all of the packages either in [extra] or in [community]
> to more easily manage the rebuilds, but no one with access to those repos is
> going to do that (the tools aren't in place, and getting them in place would
> be an uphill battle).
I would also like if:

1) Either all haskell packages from extra/community would get a group 
like ghcDependency so tahat I can disable them easily in pacman.conf.

2) Or all the haskell packages in [haskell] would get a a different 
group name (e.g. haskellRepository) so that I can differentiate them 
from the packages from extra/community. This is to avoid confusion at 
user side when he needs to figure out what repository a package is from. 
Pacman does not store this info - so if you have something installed 
there is no easy way to find out what repository it is from.

> The redundancy with [extra] and [community] is unfortunate, but ideally the
> devs would realize that this approach is optimal and support this repo.
> Redundant packages could then be removed from other repos.
In a small voice: Or, please, at least add a group name for a 
ghc-dependent packages? A different group name for the ones in 
[extra]/[community] and the ones in [haskell].

Thanks to all the maintainers of haskell packages,

More information about the arch-haskell mailing list