[arch-haskell] Future of arch-haskell.

Thomas Dziedzic gostrc at gmail.com
Sat Oct 12 07:40:09 UTC 2013

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:28 PM, 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.

I emailed magnus when I moved ghc to staging, and when I moved
packages to extra.
If there needs to be more communication, then I think the best way to
fix this is by telling me.

Also, this is the first time I've heard of such problems.
If things stay silent, I assume everything works.
If you're referring to the haskell-platform packages which got
removed, I mentioned that you should remove them manually in my
announcement because it was unavoidable.

> 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.

I know Magnus has awesome skills. :)

> 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

I'm confused, and I didn't really get an answer to my original question.

So you would like official status, but only under your own terms and
without even sending 1 email to me about it?
I would love for the world to work this way...

The words say one thing and the actions say another.

I know your intentions are good and if arch-haskell wants to do things
its own way that's fine with me.
I still think that working together would be better for the community.
Heck, at least try to work together to work something out, and if we
can't find something we can agree upon, then split off.
Anyways, I will await for a clear message of what the arch-haskell
will want to do before thinking about this any further..

More information about the arch-haskell mailing list