[arch-haskell] What to do now?

Nicolas Pouillard nicolas.pouillard at gmail.com
Sat Oct 12 07:36:43 UTC 2013

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:55:47 +0100, Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org> wrote:
> On 09/10/10 23:17, Rémy Oudompheng wrote:
> > Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org> wrote:
> >> On 09/10/10 09:43, Rémy Oudompheng wrote:
> [...]
> >>> - a darcs repo for the PKGBUILDs
> >>
> >> 1. Are you suggesting we keep binary versions of *all* of hackage in a repo,
> >>   or
> >> 2. we keep PKGBUILDs for all of hackage in an ABS tree, and only provide
> >>   binaries for a subset of packages?
> >
> > I suggest we keep PKGBUILDs for as many packages as we want, and provide
> > binary packages for either each of them, or just a subset, for example the
> > set of packages currently on AUR, and add packages to that list on demand.
> The set of packages currently on AUR is *huge*, I think Don recently
> mentioned
> something in the order of 2000 haskell packages on AUR, and that is
> about 10%
> of AUR.  I would suggest starting somewhat smaller than that :-)

> Maybe starting from Haskell Platform and growing on demand from that?

Sure we should take care that the Haskell Platform works nicely. Basically
the hard ones are those depending on external libraries, we have to manually
take care of them. Then packages only made of pure Haskell code on top of that
should be automatically built. Maybe one can start with recent uploads to
Hackage and transitively build/package their dependencies.


> The size of the .git dir is:
>   % du -sh .git
>   30M     .git
> For comparison I changed strategy for darcs, instead I recorded each package
> in its own changeset:
>  Total time to add and record: 7638.14s user 1108.26s system 99% cpu
> 2:26:04.82 total
>  Size of the whole work area: 436M
>  Size of _darcs: 409M

Let's forget darcs for this kind of task.

Nicolas Pouillard

More information about the arch-haskell mailing list