On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 03:11:44PM +0000, Xyne wrote: > Magnus Therning wrote: >> This episode has made me consider whether the tight dependency >> between [haskell] and [extra]/[community] should be broken in the >> future.
[...] > If you bring all of the Haskell packages currently spread across > [extra] and [community] into [haskell] (including ghc), then you > eliminate all of synchronization issues. You will have full control > over topological rebuilds and you can ensure the the included > packages form a compatible subset. Yes, exactly. The biggest downside is the increase in number of packages, but I'm confident our current tools are up to it. The independence is > Users can place [haskell] above [extra] in pacman.conf, which would > avoid issues if ghc and some other packages remain in the official > repos*. That should not be an issue though because I think there is Indeed, the way pacman works support that scenario well. I've used it for a while, using a private repo in order to "override" some packages in [extra]/[community]. > a good chance that [haskell] could obtain official status. I don't > remember exactly where I saw it, but just two days ago I found a > wiki page or a mailing list post where the devs had stated that they > would like to see more repos dedicated to specific goals. The > [haskell] repo definitely qualifies. That might be a nice bonus if that happened, especially if it would mean access to build machines ;-). It's all it'd be though, a bonus. > I truly believe that this would improve the Haskell experience on > Arch. :-) /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: [email protected] jabber: [email protected] twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind. -- Alan Kay
pgpYAt3N5Gpnf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
