Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] GHC 7.8.1 packaging decisions for Arch Linux
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/04/14 11:12 PM, Allan McRae wrote: Now that aside is finished, what is the deal with that arch-haskell group? Is it still going? Would they want to provide packages officially instead? It's definitely still active. They seem to have all the necessary automation worked out. AFAICT they do an automated conversion from the cabal files and maintain a set of patches for adding external dependencies, etc. https://github.com/archhaskell Indeed, it's still active. Not steaming-full-ahead-lika-a-freight-train active, but we're bringing in updates and adding new packages at a somewhat leasurely pace :) The tool that makes it possible is cblrepo - https://github.com/magthe/cblrepo Beyond that there are a few scripts that makes the chore of keeping packages up-to-date largely automated. The experience is that a single person can keep over 200 packages up-to-date with spending about 15-30 minutes per week. The builds of course take longer than that (sometimes much longer), but they don't require active monitoring. /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: mag...@therning.org jabber: mag...@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] GHC 7.8.1 packaging decisions for Arch Linux
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Jelle van der Waa je...@vdwaa.nl wrote: I would like to keep XMonad/XMobar in [community] it does seem to take up a big chunk of the haskell-* packages we have in our repos. But I've never ran into real big issues packaging haskell libraries, one minor issue is that the developers tend to oversplit packages for example haskell-data-default-* . This really makes packaging haskell libraries annoying. I don't want to prevent people from maintaining haskell packages in supported repos. I just want to make cabal-install a path with which people don't have to think twice about. I would prefer that we don't package vim plugins or firefox extensions. Firefox has it's own extension manager and vim has a lot of solutions which work better then pacman I also share this belief about haskell. Both pacman and cabal-install have their own pros and cons, but for my personally, I find that cabal-install has more benefit to me personally for haskell packages. How many haskell developers actually use our packages in the repos/aur rather then using caba-install? I can only speak from personal experience, but I have used cabal-install exclusively for a couple of years now not just for development but for also installing tools like xmonad. My guess is that given the limited supply of packages in our repos, I can guestimate 0 use it for development but there might be a lot of users that actually use the haskell tools like xmonad.
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] GHC 7.8.1 packaging decisions for Arch Linux
On 09/04/14 11:12 PM, Allan McRae wrote: On 10/04/14 12:58, Thomas Dziedzic wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Magnus Therning mag...@therning.orgwrote: I'm guessing this means cabal-install now is the only package outside of [community] that uses ghc to build. Is that right? That would be correct. Is the plan then that any future tools (i.e. non-libraries) implemented in Haskell would go into [community]? This would also be correct. I believe that most people who use packages in our supported repos don't actually use the haskell libraries themselves, but rather the tools that depend on them. (e.g. xmonad) I am not against keeping these tools around and their dependencies if someone wants to maintain them, but I personally have no interest in maintaining them myself. I am fine with this decision. Although I think it better to use a system package manager if at all possible, I do recognise that this takes man power that we do not have for haskell. People still have the option of using the AUR over cabal-install if they want to use the package manager (or system wide installs - is cabal-install a per user thing?) aside In my ideal situation, we would have a team of people for each of the major programming languages who would determine packaging policy and provide packages for many of the libraries for that language. Sort of like how we have multiple people who deal with KDE and GNOME updates. With a team based setup, it would be easier to have more junior people brought on to help. /aside Now that aside is finished, what is the deal with that arch-haskell group? Is it still going? Would they want to provide packages officially instead? It's definitely still active. They seem to have all the necessary automation worked out. AFAICT they do an automated conversion from the cabal files and maintain a set of patches for adding external dependencies, etc. https://github.com/archhaskell signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [aur-general] GHC 7.8.1 packaging decisions for Arch Linux
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: Now that aside is finished, what is the deal with that arch-haskell group? Is it still going? Would they want to provide packages officially instead? I wouldn't actually be opposed to this idea. A lot of effort is duplicated with regards to Archlinux's official haskell packages and Arch-Haskell's packages. We could try to work out something between the existing haskell package maintainers and arch-haskell maintainers. It might lead to a possibly better overall haskell experience on archlinux. Arch-haskell could maintain official haskell packages using pacman. I (and anyone interested) could support haskell package installation using the cabal-install route.
