On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 13:20, Nicolas Pouillard <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
No, I meant no such thing. pacman (with repos) and cabal-install are at best complementary, and often they aren't even that. This means we can't say that dropping [aur] OK because users can always turn to cabal-install. /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: [email protected] jabber: [email protected] twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus _______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
