Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:59:54 +0100, Rémy Oudompheng <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 2010/11/8 Magnus Therning <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 08/11/10 19:51, Xyne wrote: > > >> Magnus Therning wrote: > > >> > > >>>> I suggest adding them to a group named "haskell-platform" too. > > >>> > > >>> With or without having a haskell-platform package? > > >> > > >> Packages and groups should never have the same name. If you think a > > >> package > > >> by that name would make more sense then forget I mentioned using a group. > > > > > > I personally think a (meta-) package is better than a group. I've never > > > really understood groups. That is, I understand perfectly how they > > > work, but > > > I don't understand the reason for having them. > > > > I see groups as a user-friendly manner of presenting, sorting, > > installing packages, while meta-packages are friendlier to developers > > and package managers (you can use a meta-package as dependency). I > > don't think we are going to have depends=(haskell-platform) anywhere, > > since all PKGBUILDs we have rely on the individual libraries. > > If there is so little difference, then I'm for the meta-package solution.
If I ever get around to implementing true optdeps [1] myself, them metapackages will be truly useful. Until then, they leave the user with no real configuration other than patching the package every time it's upgraded.. [1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-October/011695.html (It's one of my many explanations of how a relatively simple change could fundamentally improve the situation and reduce overall complexity.) _______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
