'temporary' package

[João Cristóvão]

Actually, just a follow-up idea, what if cabal reported a link to this (or
other) page whenever it fails?

It would be (one or two lines) more verbose, but it could be helpful from
an usability point of view...

Just a suggestion,
Cheers


2014-05-10 22:10 GMT+01:00 João Cristóvão <jmacristovao at gmail.com>:

> > It might be good to also mention a user's options for using their own
> fork of a package ...
>
> I was going to say: perhaps an Wiki entry stating what to do in case the
> build fails, but of course, it turns out there is one already:
>
> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Cabal/Survival
>
> I would only add two steps:
> 1a) If the package has a github repository, check out if someone else
> already forked it (on github, not hackage) and check it out as a
> temporary solution or
> 1b) Do "cabal get -s package", and fix the package yourself, and...
> 2) with the use of cabal sandboxes, namely the "cabal sandbox add-source",
> the problem is easily solved.
>
> I apply this most of the times I detect a package problem in parallel with
> notifying the author, and it has suited me well.
> Perhaps its just a case of forwarding the users to this page?
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
> 2014-05-10 21:49 GMT+01:00 <amindfv at gmail.com>:
>
> It might be good to also mention a user's options for using their own fork
>> of a package while waiting for an update on hackage. Part of peoples'
>> frustration seems to be coming from a feeling that they're blocked on
>> waiting for the package to be updated.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>> El May 10, 2014, a las 15:35, Carter Schonwald <
>> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> escribió:
>>
>> Let's update that policy with your and Edwards remarks?
>>
>> On Saturday, May 10, 2014, Erik Hesselink <hesselink at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Gershom Bazerman <gershomb at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I understand that Max did a bunch of very important work, then became
>>> > occupied with other things in the world. And in the long term, that
>>> needs to
>>> > be sorted out. But in the short term, a four-day-notice policy is
>>> silly. And
>>> > furthermore, even though there's nothing _wrong_ with forking
>>> promiscuously,
>>> > it tends to create a mess, to no good end.
>>>
>>> Just a small note since this was mentioned a couple of times: as
>>> hackage admins we don't have a 'four-day-notice policy'. The package
>>> takeover procedure [0] just says 'a while', and we've taken this to
>>> mean at least 2-3 weeks to account for vacations, other absences,
>>> general busyness etc.
>>>
>>> Erik
>>>
>>> [0] http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Taking_over_a_package
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> Libraries at haskell.org
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140510/28022d67/attachment.html>