[arch-haskell] How to update packages in extra?

[Magnus Therning]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 14:05, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010/10/19 Magnus Therning <magnus at therning.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 13:31, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The reason that I suggested a separate [arch-haskell] repo in the first place
>>> was to avoid all of these considerations. I still think it might be much simpler
>>> to remove all Haskell packages from [extra] and most from [community] and
>>> maintain them in a separate repo. If it were official like the [multilib] repo
>>> then it could be enabled by default in pacman.conf.
>>>
>>> Basically any package that would need to be part of a topological rebuild would
>>> be in [arch-haskell]. This would exclude some packages from [community] but
>>> this would have no effect on the end user as it would be enabled by default in
>>> pacman.conf and just as accessible. [community] and [arch-haskell] could also
>>> be codependent, i.e. deps from one could be in the other, as both could be
>>> expected to be enabled by default.
>>>
>>> The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that this is the optimal
>>> approach. This guarantees that we can maintain internal consistency with
>>> topological (and maybe even automatic) rebuilds and we do not need to worry
>>> about others remaining synchronized with our build cycle. It keeps everything
>>> in one place and would also gain the benefits of being mirrored with the rest
>>> of the official repos.
>>
>> I agree with you about this.  However, this raises the question of how
>> we make this is to happen.  Who do we have to convince?  What do we
>> have to do?
>
> I suggest we set up our infrastructure first: when everything is
> ready, we can think about changing how packages are managed in [extra]
> and [community]. However, I disagree with the possibility that
> [community] packages could depend on [arch-haskell], just like there
> is no way a [community] package can depend on a [multilib] package.

Well, I'm still completely set on washing my hands of AUR when it
comes to Haskell packages, at least in the long term.

> I think there is no harm having a full [arch-haskell] repository that
> people can put at top of pacman.conf, so that it is used with higher
> priority than [extra] and [community]. So first we have a robust and
> tested system, and then we discuss about how it integrates with the
> mainstream package set.

Sure, but that brings back the biggest of issues with the
binary-packages-plan: online storage.

I personally don't have enough online storage and bandwidth to put up
a repository and share it widely.

/M

-- 
Magnus Therning                        (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus＠therning．org          Jabber: magnus＠therning．org
http://therning.org/magnus         identi.ca|twitter: magthe