[arch-haskell] http-conduit

Fabio Riga rifabio at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 00:37:11 CEST 2012

In data 20.09.2012 17:34:15, Nicolas Pouillard ha scritto:
> Thanks it seems to work great!
Thank you! Please note that this is a test. So expect this to break in  
some way.
> Can you tell how easy to maintain a repository (cblrepo) on top of the
> archhaskell one. I did thought about forking habs but it is a waste of
> time. However building another repo on top of it might provide with a
> nice distributed nature allowing us to maintain the package we care  
> the
> most about.
> Did you took special steps, how do you merge the cblrepo from the  
> main habs?
> You turn them from RepoPackages to DistroPackages right?
This was exactly my idea. There's no need to fork the excellent work  
made by Magnus and others. I made a new repo using cblrepo. I inserted  
the same GhcPkg of habs. Then I made a script for adding new packages,  
tracking all dependencies using cabal install, and check them with the  
habs repo. If packages are there, the script uses cblrepo to add them  
as DistroPkg, else they are inserted as repo.

The script is far from being completed and usable, and I haven't had  
enough time to clean, document and publish it. I would like to make it  
easy to make a new repository tracking many others, not just one. So to  
make, as you told, a distributed system.

The main problem I encountered (and everyone using [haskell-extra] will  
do) is that when a package in [habs] is updated and I have a package  
installed that depends on it, pacman will refuse to update the system  
until [haskell-extra] is updated as well. This is unavoidable, as I  
need the new package in [habs] before updating [haskell-extra]. The  
alternative would be to recompile all updated packages in [habs] AND  
all affected package in [haskell-extra], and I won't do this! Another  
way could be to have updated packages in a private repository for a  
couple of days, so my repository (and others as well) could have the  
time to keep in sync. With the latter solution, we could easily merge  
the resulting packages in one repository.

I hope this clarify a little what I'm doing. Any suggestion is highly  

More information about the arch-haskell mailing list