[arch-haskell] Simple, general template for cabal packages?

[Jeff Johnson]

Yeah I didn't mean those exact packages were in need of redoing, just meant
them as examples of good packages. Hoodle's probably a better example. I do
need a version of gitit compiled with plugin support though, and the ARM
version of git-annex isn't fully working yet--although it seems like joeyh
will provide that as soon as the dependencies allow.

The point about some libs taking a long time to compile is a good one. I
haven't run into it yet but that's probably just lack of experience and I'd
like to avoid it if possible.

I think I might just be confused about Haskell libs. My understanding
(based on http://coldwa.st/e/blog/2013-08-20-Cabal-sandbox.html) is that
when you compile a new package you need to recompile all its dependencies,
and then also recompile anything else that depends on them. Which seems
like it would take MORE compilation than separate sandboxes. Is that not
how it works? Because it really bugged me that they would be non-modular
like that, and if you can reuse them after all then suddenly the repos make
sense too. Is that what compiling a library vs a regular binary means?
Jeff


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Leif Warner <abimelech at gmail.com> wrote:

> pandoc, git-annex, and xmonad are available in [haskell-core]; no need to
> compile anything yourself or pull down extra dependencies.
>
> As far as providing only build of binary command-line programs (and not
> libs) and building needed libs for each tool in a sandbox build; that's
> been discussed over on the mac side w/ brew.
>
> I for one *really* appreciate having binary installs of haskell libs
> available.  Some take *forever* to compile (e.g. llvm-general), and I
> really like having one consistent set of libs to worry about and not having
> to figure out library version number juggling myself.  I use a lot of
> haskell tools, and I also compile haskell programs / do development in
> haskell.  If a lib's already been compiled into a package, it's making that
> available for other computers to install, rather than make other boxes
> recompile that themselves.
> For things not in [haskell-core], I've been using cabal2arch to make
> PKGBUILDs, put those on AUR, and install those myself.  I don't have
> anything cabal-install'd at the user level.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Jeff Johnson <jefdaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone!
>>
>> I've been becoming more and more dependent on Haskell programs lately.
>> There aren't many popular ones (yet!), but those that do exist seem
>> uncommonly good and have quickly become core parts of my workflow: pandoc,
>> gitit, git-annex, and hoodle are the main ones so far, plus maybe xmonad.
>>
>> But they also seem idiosyncratic and hard to install: builds often fail,
>> pacman spits tons of errors even when upgrading successfully, you sometimes
>> have to reinstall them all at once to maintain compatibility, etc. I've
>> read these pages:
>>
>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.arch-linux/1743
>> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Haskell_package_guidelines
>>
>> And I'm confused about the point of separate [haskell-*] repositories.
>> Why all the overhead? The simplest thing I could imagine working would be a
>> PKGBUILD with a "snapshot" of compatible dependency versions. Then you
>> could do a sandboxed build from scratch each time. Somehing like:
>>
>> _pkgname=hoodle
>> pkgname=$_pkgname-cabal
>> ...
>> makedepends=('cabal-git') # sandboxes introduced in 1.18
>> _cabaldepends=(
>>   ...
>>   'coroutine-object-0.2.0.0'
>>   'hoodle-types-0.2.2'
>>   'xournal-types-0.5.0.2'
>>   'hoodle-builder-0.2.2.0'
>>   'hoodle-parser-0.2.2'
>>   'xournal-parser-0.5.0.2'
>>   ...
>> )
>> build() {
>>   ...
>>   cabal-git sandbox init
>>   cabal-git update
>>   cabal-git install $_cabaldepends $_pkgname-$pkgver
>>   ...
>> }
>>
>> The only downside would be a lot of compilation, but that could be solved
>> the same way it is for non-Haskell packages: popular ones get adopted into
>> [community]. Does that sound sensible? Or am I on the way to deciding I
>> should contribute to an existing repository? Should I just try it and see?
>>
>> Oh and apologies if this has been answered; I just joined the mailing
>> list.
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140122/cf940f41/attachment-0001.html>