Browsing around Hackage, I notice that a seemingly random subset of
packages are available for something called "arch linux". Presumably
some sort of automatic conversion system is involved, but does anyone
know why only certain packages appear?
I've noticed that both Debian and OpenSUSE have
Andrew Coppin writes:
> Browsing around Hackage, I notice that a seemingly random subset of
> packages are available for something called "arch linux". Presumably
> some sort of automatic conversion system is involved, but does anyone
> know why only certain packages appear?
>
> I've noticed that
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
Hackage has limited support for distro maintainers to state which
packages are available on the distribution. Last I checked, it required
distro maintainers to keep a text file somewhere up to date.
Note that not all distributions bother.
Yeah, I figured. I don't
Andrew Coppin writes:
> Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
>> Hackage has limited support for distro maintainers to state which
>> packages are available on the distribution. Last I checked, it required
>> distro maintainers to keep a text file somewhere up to date.
>>
>> Note that not all distributio
> Now, you say it's preferable to use the native package manager where
> possible. I've got one word for you: Windows. You know, the most popular OS
> on the market? The one installed on 98% of all computers world-wide? Guess
> what: no native package manager.
Isn't Windows Installer (MSI) a packa
Jonas Almström Duregård writes:
>> Now, you say it's preferable to use the native package manager where
>> possible. I've got one word for you: Windows. You know, the most popular OS
>> on the market? The one installed on 98% of all computers world-wide? Guess
>> what: no native package manager.
> It looks as if it's automated for Arch, however. Either that or somebody is
> spending an absurd amount of time keeping it manually up to date.
Yeah, it's automated, Don Stewart made a script to do that.
http://archhaskell.wordpress.com/
--
==
Ivan S
Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 22.08.2010, 10:55 +0100 schrieb Andrew Coppin:
> Browsing around Hackage, I notice that a seemingly random subset of
> packages are available for something called "arch linux". Presumably
> some sort of automatic conversion system is involved, but does anyone
> know why only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/22/2010 06:41 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
>> Hackage has limited support for distro maintainers to state which
>> packages are available on the distribution. Last I checked, it
>> required
>> distro maintainers to ke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/22/2010 07:19 AM, Jonas Almström Duregård wrote:
>> Now, you say it's preferable to use the native package manager
>> where possible. I've got one word for you: Windows. You know, the
>> most popular OS on the market? The one installed on 98% of
I used to use archlinux packages however it became a pain for the following
reasons
- packages on archlinux don't auto update when cabal does. This becomes
really annoying when package X gets updated on cabal but not on arch and
causes conflicts with other packages
- in some situations doing a ge
On 24 August 2010 15:50, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
> I used to use archlinux packages however it became a pain for the following
> reasons
>
> - packages on archlinux don't auto update when cabal does. This becomes
> really annoying when package X gets updated on cabal but not on arch and
> causes
2010/8/24 Ivan Lazar Miljenovic :
> What do you mean by "metapackages"?
Metapackage are packages of packages, they don't provide something by
themselves, but they have a dependency list so that a set of package
can be installed together.
For example, on ubuntu, installing "build-essentials" will
On 24 August 2010 16:15, David Virebayre wrote:
> 2010/8/24 Ivan Lazar Miljenovic :
>
>> What do you mean by "metapackages"?
>
> Metapackage are packages of packages, they don't provide something by
> themselves, but they have a dependency list so that a set of package
> can be installed together.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 August 2010 15:50, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
> > I used to use archlinux packages however it became a pain for the
> following
> > reasons
> >
> > - packages on archlinux don't auto update when cabal
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:50, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
> I used to use archlinux packages however it became a pain for the following
> reasons
>
> - packages on archlinux don't auto update when cabal does. This becomes
> really annoying when package X gets updated on cabal but not on arch and
> c
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 24.08.2010, 09:30 +0100 schrieb Magnus Therning:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:50, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
> > - in some situations doing a general update with arch (through clyde or
> > packer) breaks ghc (last time it happened packer tried to uninstall/update
> > arch pack
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:18, Joachim Breitner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 24.08.2010, 09:30 +0100 schrieb Magnus Therning:
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:50, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
>> > - in some situations doing a general update with arch (through clyde or
>> > packer) breaks ghc (last
On 24 August 2010 17:45, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
> wrote:
>>
>> On 24 August 2010 15:50, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
>> >
>> > - packages on archlinux don't auto update when cabal does. This becomes
>> > really annoying when package X gets
On 24 August 2010 21:18, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 24.08.2010, 09:30 +0100 schrieb Magnus Therning:
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:50, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
>> > - in some situations doing a general update with arch (through clyde or
>> > packer) breaks ghc (last time
On Aug 22, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
It looks as if it's automated for Arch, however. Either that or
somebody is spending an absurd amount of time keeping it manually up
to date.
It probably is automated. There's a tool out there called
"cabal2arch", which turns a cabal fil
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
> It looks as if it's automated for Arch, however. Either that or somebody
>> is spending an absurd amount of time keeping it manually up to date.
>>
>
> It probably is automated. Th
On 25 August 2010 13:40, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
> It is automated in a manual way =D. By that I mean that there is a script
> which autobuilds packages with cabal2arch, however that script itself has to
> be manually run. In all honesty I believe the best policy is to have base
> packages (and o
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 August 2010 13:40, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
> > It is automated in a manual way =D. By that I mean that there is a script
> > which autobuilds packages with cabal2arch, however that script itself ha
On 25 August 2010 14:36, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
> wrote:
>> Consider these scenarios:
>>
>> 1) You upgrade package foo; this breaks a large number of other
>> packages. How do you deal with it?
>
> Thats what happened when I was usin
In all honesty I think the issue is that archlinux AUR packages are being
generated in a very naive way (and not a Archlinux philosophy in general).
The whole point of AUR is that its supposed to make it very easy for people
to upload packages/libraries.
In my opinion putting such packages in AUR
On 25/08/10 06:18, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
[...]
> If people just wanted an auto udpate version of cabal that works through
> arch's package management, then there should have just been a pacman wrapper
> which when you install/update haskell libraries/packages, it creates a local
> package throug
Oh thanks
<3
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Magnus Therning wrote:
> On 25/08/10 06:18, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
> [...]
> > If people just wanted an auto udpate version of cabal that works through
> > arch's package management, then there should have just been a pacman
> wrapper
> > which whe
deteego:
>
> If people just wanted an auto udpate version of cabal that works through
> arch's
> package management, then there should have just been a pacman wrapper which
> when you install/update haskell libraries/packages, it creates a local package
> through cabal2arch instead of using AUR.
On 25 August 2010 15:18, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
> The thing is, libraries at least should be automated. There are just way too
> many packages in Hackage for someone to go through and manually check if
> something goes wrong, and you get the issues described previously in
> conflicts of latest v
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 25.08.2010, 12:03 +1000 schrieb Ivan Lazar Miljenovic:
> On 24 August 2010 21:18, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 24.08.2010, 09:30 +0100 schrieb Magnus Therning:
> >> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:50, Mathew de Detrich wrote:
> >> > - in some situations doing a ge
31 matches
Mail list logo
