On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 02:41:51PM +0100, Fabio Riga wrote: > 2012/11/30 Magnus Therning <mag...@therning.org> >> >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Ramana Kumar <ram...@member.fsf.org> wrote: >>> [haskell] and [haskell-web] are out of sync at the moment. > > I would say that github repository of [haskell] is out of sync with > [haskell], so [haskell-web] can't be updated.
Yeah, that's my bad. I sometimes start updates and builds in the morning and then check in on them during the day. If they succeed I push the new packages to the repo, but I only have write access to the github repos from my home computer. I always plan to push the changes as soon as I get home, but you know what they say about the best laid schemes of mice and men; I sometimes forget and it might go days before I remember. >> Yes, that's exactly what `cblrepo` does through its package >> database. Of course it only does this with the packages in a >> single database, there is no support for multiple databases. There >> is not even any support for merging databases. > > We don't need to merge databases. `cblrepo` is a very cool tool, but > a single human can reasonably manage 150 packages, more or less. If > we want a bigger, almost complete haskell repository (do we?) we > need to work in team. >>> I suppose the right way to do this would be to only offer one >>> endpoint repo, which combines the results of all the small repos >>> people are maintaining. >> >> Please elaborate a little more on the details of how that would >> work. I'm more than open to making changes to `cblrepo` in this >> direction if necessary. > > This are my suggestions: > > 1. Magnus keep a [haskell-base] repository. This MUST be an Arch repo > in sync with a github repo. > 2. Both repositories (Arch and git) should be available for > maintainers of other repository. > 3. Maintainer of [haskell-web] (me) MUST update it's repo to keep in > sync with base in a reasonable time. > 4. After this time a “global maintainer” (Magnus, Ramana, me, whoever) > can grab all packages from both repositories and put them in a new > one: [haskell] > 5. Only [haskell] is intended for end users. > > A “reasonable time” could be 3 days. I saw that Magnus updates the > repo on Wednesday and on Saturday/Sunday: so before the next update > [haskell-web] should be in sync. > > I developed [haskell-web] in a way that it will not duplicate packages > from [haskell]: I use them as DistroPkg. Updating is easy with > `cbladmin` [^1], there's no need to modify `cblrepo`, maybe you could > merge (and develop) some ideas from there. But this is not the main > point. The main point is to be in sync, or else I'm just wasting my > time, as [haskell-web] will never be really useful. The big piece that's missing above is how to handle failures to upgrade a package caused by a dependant not allowing the upgrade. Do we hold off the base-test repo then? I currently upgrade everything I can in one transaction, what if one of the packages requires holding back due to a dependant. Would that require a partial roll-back in the base-test repo? It's questions like these that I don't have a good answer to. And yes, both situations have occurred in the past. They both cause a bit of work (though not so much if they are caught already at 'clbrepo updates' time). /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: mag...@therning.org jabber: mag...@therning.org 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 _______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list arch-haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
