On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Magnus Therning <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 21:01, Bernardo Barros <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Magnus Therning >>> Any thoughts or comments on this? >>> >> >> But there is also cases like qtHaskell that are not straightforward to >> build by hand, and it is not in hackage. That should have a [aur] if >> not present in [haskell] > > qtHaskell is special, because it's not on Hackage. That's why it isn't > in [haskell]. > >> In most cases since cabal does a better job, [aur] packages should be >> strongly discouraged. > > IMNSHO we should never look at cabal as a replacement for an Arch repo or > [aur].
How do you make the distinction between using cabal-install and [haskell] in you day-to-day use. I tend to use cabal-install for developpement and [haskell] for production. But often the two are quite close and I end up trying to add these packages to [haskell]. There is also issues with cabal-install itself and in combination to Arch. For instance cabal-install will build/install a package which may exists in [haskell]. Does anyone have a solution for that? Second, there is no cabal-uninstall and packages are easily broken by Arch updates. -- Nicolas Pouillard http://nicolaspouillard.fr _______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
