Regarding what to put in the repository, I would use AUR and aurvote. I (and whoever want to) could maintain some aur package orphaned by archhaskell user. Packages that take some vote go in arch-haskell. I don't know how many people use yaourt, but I do and I would like to have as many updated haskell package in AUR as possible, if we can't have all of them in arch-haskell.
Cheers, Fabio 2011/11/13 Fabio Riga <rifa...@gmail.com> > Hello, > > 2011/11/12 Magnus Therning <mag...@therning.org> > >> >> It would be excellent if more people could work on keeping [haskell] >> up-to-date :) >> >> However, splitting updating the database and the building of packages >> is likely to be a bit painful. So far my experience is that updating >> packages to a buildable state often requires a few iterations of >> modifying patch files and attempting builds. If each such iteration >> requires communication it's likely to drag out quite a bit. The ideal >> would be a build server really. >> >> /M >> > > why should we drop packages? Unless we are running out of space on the > repository server we shouldn't. So I think we should find a solution to > decentralize the building process. So a build server could be okay. Is it a > problem to have a maintainer that check *some* packages, and not > everything? The main maintainer should only put everything together, maybe > periodically, so the others know when to submit updates and when to wait > for the next one. > > Are you sure this will be more painful than build everything by your own > on your laptop? > > Fabio > >
_______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list arch-haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
