[arch-haskell] Starting to help

Fabio Riga rifabio at gmail.com
Sat Oct 12 07:39:27 UTC 2013

Hi Peter,

2011/6/26 Peter Simons <simons at cryp.to>:
>  > 1) In order to test for broken packages, do I really need to use the
>  > makeworld script? I think it would take too much time!
> Unfortunately, distributing Haskell packages is a fairly complicated
> affair, mostly because these packages interact with each other in
> complex ways. Some problems can be caught without running a test build,
> but not all of them. My experience is that running 'makeworld' is the
> only way to be sure that the repository is in a consistent state.

It seems to me that you're speaking about core packages, needed by
many others. I think that these packages should be in the repository,
others don't interact much: a web framework with a game, for example.
My main fear is spending time in compiling, not the builing process

>  > 2) Past discussions suggest me that the group is centred on a small
>  > number of packages to put in a binary repository. It's wonderful to
>  > have this, but it takes a very long time. What do you think if some
>  > people concentrate in the simplest and fastest task of preparing
>  > PKGBUILDs and put them in a place (i.e. AUR) where the core group
>  > decide witch package worth an inclusion in the repo?
> It is possible to update packages on AUR without building them first.
> So, yes, we could split this effort into one that updates AUR and one
> that maintains the binary repository. Past experience suggests, though,
> that packages that are being published without being built first tend to
> be very unreliable. This means that users will run into build problems,
> and then they'll complain on AUR or on this list -- and rightfully so!
> Dealing with those issues, however, is a lot of effort. I'm not sure
> whether publishing untested PKGBUILDs is going to be very helpful for
> the general user base.

I wrote very badly what I was thinking: you're perfectly right:
packages must be tested. Before updating AUR I would compile the
needed dependencies and only that, faster then makeword (that remember
me the old bad times with Gentoo :-) ).

>  > 3) For Peter: could you please give some help information on how to
>  > use the scripts in
>  > https://github.com/peti/arch-haskell/tree/master/scripts ?
> I'll try to describe my work-flow briefly:
> [...]
The work flow can feet, but know you and me have a compiled repo,
hopefully the same. Still someone (I assume you) has to copy it to the
[Haskell] repo server and update the AUR. Unless this work is totally
automated, it sound like a bad bottle-neck, but I have to understand
more of you procedure, I hope I'm very wrong on this.

>  > 4) Why haskell packages in extra depends on ghc-7.0.3 (still in testing)?
> There is an update of GHC available in [testing], and unfortunately some
> packages have been published that were built with that newer GHC version
> before GHC itself is available. In short, Haskell support is currently
> broken in ArchLinux. Unfortunately, these things happen, but it's most
> probably going to be remedied soon.

That's bad. Now pacman tells me that ghc-7.0.3 is here. So ALL haskell
repository must be recompiled, isn't it? If I use your "push" script
and add +1 to pkgrel is ok? Maybe it's better if I wait a little. It's
a shame, because now I have some time to spend...

Well, I'll try your method it, I only need to understand things.


More information about the arch-haskell mailing list