On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 15:14:25 -0400, David Roundy wrote: >> I think this is an overstatement. I'd still rather keep packaging out of >> the official darcs repository on the whole. I know that we do have a >> darcs.spec.in file in release/, but the debian stuff has been removed, and >> in release/ it's out of the way. Perhaps we could put the darcs.cabal in >> the same place? > > Well, that would be a bit of an inconvenience to everybody that wants to > use the Cabal file. I would prefer we just kept it in the repository > root.
I imagine that people using cabal install won't be running from the darcs repository. >> We don't have a gentoo ebuild in the official darcs repository, and I >> don't see a strong reason why we should add one. Why is cabal any >> different? > > I understand that you see Cabal as just a packaging system among others, > and I would like to propose a slight nuance to add to your view. > > Cabal files exist to make packaging darcs easier: cabal-install, > MacPorts, Debian, RedHat, ArchLinux, Gentoo, Cygwin all could benefit > from having a single reference point for our Haskell package dependency > information. Providing an official Cabal file makes it easier for a > diverse group of packagers to install darcs and indirectly makes it > easier for people to install darcs, which is a very good thing for the > community. Yes, I've heard this before. I'm not convinced that it's true, beyond arch linux. Maybe it is, though. > In other words, the nuance consists is separating the discussion on the > merits of Cabal from that of cabal-install. Hackage/cabal-install can > be seen as a packaging system among others (Gentoo, etc), and I can > understand your resistance to giving it any special treatement. Cabal > itself on the other hand, should become part of darcs, because it allows > us to help lots of different people package darcs for very little cost. > > As a separate issue, I personally think we should also make some effort > to ensure that "cabal install darcs" works... and the reason for doing > this is that it validates our cabal file and gives packagers confidence. I suppose it depends on who the "we" is. I agree that whoever makes a cabal file should make sure it works. David _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
