[arch-haskell] [haskell-web] & ghc 7.6.3

[Nicolas Pouillard]

Quoting Magnus Therning (2013-05-30 18:27:26)
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 01:15:50PM +0200, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> > Quoting Ramana Kumar (2013-05-29 09:45:19)
> > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org>wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Please let me know if you /do/ retire [habs-web] as there might be a
> > > > number of commonly used packages in there that ought to be moved into
> > > > [haskell-core].  I'm guessing you don't have any kind of usage
> > > > statistics on the packages, do you? ;)
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I think it's best to consider habs-web retired as of now, since it
> > > currently has no maintainer.
> > > However, as far as moving packages goes, it would probably be fine to wait
> > > until someone explicitly asks for something that was in web to be made
> > > available in core.
> > 
> > I am/was also a user of habs-web for roughly two use-cases:
> >   * haskell programs such as git-annex or notmuch-web [0] that I want
> >     to build once and install multiple times.
> >   * my strategy to reduce compilation time was to install all binary
> >     haskell packages available and then use cabal install for the
> >     rest.
> > 
> > I wolud like to also suggest that as long as storage permits we
> > should keep the latest version of a working set of packages for each
> > version of GHC. This does not cost much to just keep a copy before
> > trying an upgrade and this would help users migrating.
> 
> I don't think I understand what you mean by "we should keep the latest
> version of a working set of packages for each version of GHC".  Would
> you mind describing in a few more words what that means?

I mean to spawn off a frozen repo for at least the previous release
of GHC. Repos could be named such as [haskell-core-7.6.2].

Is that reasonable?

-- NP