On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Magnus Therning <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:11, Nicolas Pouillard > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 don't use cabal-install, so it's simple to make the distinction :)
OK, so I misunderstood «we should never look at cabal as a replacement for an Arch repo or [aur].»? From this I read that you do want make cabal-install useless in Arch? -- Nicolas Pouillard http://nicolaspouillard.fr _______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
