[arch-haskell] Re: What to do now?

[Nicolas Pouillard]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:28:05 +0100, Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org> wrote:
> On 08/10/10 22:14, Magnus Therning wrote:
> > Now that Don has decided to focus his Herculean powers in other directions I
> > wonder what people feel should be the plan for the future.
> > 
> > Do we try to fix up Don's tools and scripts so that they are more
> > conducive to
> > team work?
> > 
> > Do we give up on having all of Hackage in AUR and instead rely on tools like
> > bauerbill?
> > 
> > Do we try to do something like what Xyne suggested--set up a Haskell ABS and
> > publish pre-compiled packages in [arch-haskell]?
> 
> Here's what I'd suggest based on the last few days' discussion:
> 
> • Create an ABS-like tree for all hackage packages.
> • Populate it with the current versions of packages as found on AUR.
> • Keep the tree on github.
> 
> This will allow us to, in the short term:
> 
> • Distribute the work of keeping up with Hackage.
> • Still upload packages to AUR.
> 
> In the longer term I'd like to evolve the tools to work with this setup.
>  At some point I'd love to see this:
> 
> • Some advanced packages builders are able to work straight against the
> ABS-tree on github, e.g. bauerbill.
> • cabal2arch modified to work against a local version of the ABS-tree.
> • A tool capable of determining the reverse dependencies of packages
> kept in the ABS-tree (so that all packages depending on the updated one
> can be rebuilt).
> • An (official) repository for binary Haskell packages, maintained by a
> team of people.
> 
> What do you think?

That's a great plan, I hope that we are not far from a binary repo, I would
be a big step forward. In some way, once cabal2arch has done its job and
that we have this ABS tree, tools should be the same than for others
repository?

-- 
Nicolas Pouillard
http://nicolaspouillard.fr