[arch-haskell] Future of arch-haskell.

[Jonathan Lahav]

I am just a user, but imho when two forces are willing to join forces it
shouldn't be dismiss too easily. (it might be justified in this case though)

Anyway, I don't think Thomas argues about the technical details, but he
just want more cooperation, communication. We all agree this is a good
thing, right?

His post is a favor to us, I think, because it is the door to official Arch
and possibly making the state of Haskell in Arch better for everyone.

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:

> Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I recently found out arch-haskell has completely split from using
> archlinux.
> > I was wondering what your future plans are for arch-haskell as you
> > have become a completely separate entity. (providing all your own
> > packages)
> > I expressed in a previous mail that I would like to work together
> > rather than having you guys split off from arch completely, but that
> > is your choice.
> >
> > I also read some mails on this ml about getting official status.
> > Splitting off completely and not communicating your intentions with me
> > is not going to get you an official status if that is your intention.
> > Instead, communication and coordination with me is crucial for that to
> > have any chance.
> >
> > I am still for working together, but we need to start talking if you
> > also want to work together.
> > Otherwise, I wish this community the very best of luck if you choose
> > to completely split.
> >
> > Cheers!
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Haskell packages require topological rebuilds and that always seems to
> cause
> problems when a rebuild needs to be coordinated across 3+ repos with even
> more
> packagers. The recent updates have left several users in dependency hell
> and
> unable to upgrade their systems.
>
> In theory you could put all of the packages either in [extra] or in
> [community]
> to more easily manage the rebuilds, but no one with access to those repos
> is
> going to do that (the tools aren't in place, and getting them in place
> would
> be an uphill battle).
>
> Besides, it really makes sense to have them in a separate Haskell repo.
> They
> form a large set of related packages, and they require highly coordinated
> rebuilds.
>
> Magnus has both the skills and motivation to maintain such a repo. Official
> status or not, the goal is to provide working packages for the user and
> this
> will do just that.
>
> The redundancy with [extra] and [community] is unfortunate, but ideally the
> devs would realize that this approach is optimal and support this repo.
> Redundant packages could then be removed from other repos.
>
> Please don't see this as stepping on your toes. Try to see the benefits of
> this
> approach and support it as it will vastly improve the end-user experience
> for
> all Archers who use Haskell.
>
> Regards,
> Xyne
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> arch-haskell mailing list
> arch-haskell at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/arch-haskell/attachments/20131012/222675f9/attachment.html>