October 2010 - arch-haskell

Handover
by Don Stewart 13 Oct '10

13 Oct '10

Hey all. I've released the latest versions of the core tools today: * http://hackage.haskell.org/package/archlinux-0.3.3 * http://hackage.haskell.org/package/cabal2arch-0.7.4 And documented as much as I can think of now for the various processes: * http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Arch_Linux/Arch_Haskell_Group_Maintainership **Magnus Therning** has the passwords for AUR, the twitter account, and the blog. Good luck and good hacking!! -- Don

5 16

AUR Out-of-date Notification for haskell-tagsoup
by aur-notify＠archlinux.org 13 Oct '10

13 Oct '10

Your package haskell-tagsoup has been flagged out of date by peti [1]. You may view your package at: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=17494 [1] - http://aur.archlinux.org/account.php?Action=AccountInfo&ID=11847

1 0

Where is the repository going to be hosted?
by Peter Simons 13 Oct '10

13 Oct '10

Hi guys, I wonder where the to-be-created binary repository is going to be hosted? I would expect that the site would have to deal with quite a bit of traffic. Can haskell.org deal with that? Or is there a chance that we could re-use the existing ArchLinux infrastructure? Does anyone know how to figure that out? Also, who is going to build those binary packages? Given the fact that updates require a topological re-build of all dependent packages, the machine in question ought to be fast. Furthermore, the generated packages have to be uploaded to some place, so good network connectivity is important for that host, too. I know my private PC won't be able to cope, that's for sure. :-) Take care, Peter

1 0

AUR Out-of-date Notification for haskell-data-object-json
by aur-notify＠archlinux.org 13 Oct '10

13 Oct '10

Your package haskell-data-object-json has been flagged out of date by peti [1]. You may view your package at: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=35371 [1] - http://aur.archlinux.org/account.php?Action=AccountInfo&ID=11847

1 0

Re: [arch-haskell] Layout of ABS tree for Haskell packages?
by Magnus Therning 12 Oct '10

12 Oct '10

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:04, Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010/10/12 Magnus Therning <magnus(a)therning.org> wrote: >> I've just downloaded all 1937 packages maintained by arch-haskell on >> AUR, and I'm about to put them all in a git repository. Before doing >> that I thought I'd ask if anyone has suggestions on the directory >> hierarchy in that repo? >> >> The only criterion I can think of is that we'd probably would want >> binary and source packages separated in some way. I should say that >> this is mostly a hunch on my part so I'm more than willing to be >> convinced otherwise. So, based on this hunch I'm currently leaning >> towards the following layout: >> >> habs >> ├── bin >> │ ├── befunge93 >> │ │ └── PKGBUILD >> │ ├── berp >> │ │ ├── berp.install >> │ │ └── PKGBUILD >> │ │ ... >> ├── aur >> │ ├── addlicenseinfo >> │ │ └── PKGBUILD >> │ ├── advgame >> │ │ └── PKGBUILD >> │ │ ... >> >> Any thought or comments on this. I'm particularly interested in >> comments from people who have experience with working with the >> ABS-related tools. > > I don't think there is such thing as "ABS-related tools", unless you > are more specific. I can only share my knowledge of how we are > organised for official repos (core/extra...). I am completely ignorant in this area :-) It's very probably that much I say/ask about ABS is complete bollocks! > Our layout, as I may have explained in an older thread, is rather > > root > * advgame > * - trunk > * - repo > * berp > * - trunk > * - repo > ... > > The idea being than work-in-progress is kept is trunk, and repo is a > snapshot of PKGBUILDs which are building correctly. I think your > layout is okay too. Do you know if binary packages can be hosted > somewhere ? My idea is that if a package can be built successfully, > some script would be able to upload this binary package to a FTP > server, as well a backuping the PKGBUILD from the "aur" area to the > "bin" area so that PKGBUILDs there match the binary packages. Am I correct in guessing that the layout you describe is held in SVN? This is how I'm thinking of using git: • archhaskell/habs is the official ABS tree, the aim is to always have it in a completely working condition • work-in-progress is kept in individual contributors' own clones • sharing of work-in-progress between contributors' happen in whatever way they see fit, the archhaskell/habs clone is not involved at all • when a contributor is happy with a change a changeset is either sent to the arch-haskell mailing list, or a pull request is created on github • the changeset can then be applied, or denied, by a member of the github archhaskell group I should emphasise that the same procedure should apply to members of the github archhaskell group as well. > The "bin" area is the "ABS" tree, while the "aur" area is the "AUR" tree. The "bin" area would be the collection of source packages that we decide to build and provide in binary form, the "aur" area would be the collection of source packages that we continue to upload to AUR. Maybe it's better to call the latter "src" instead, since we've been talking about dropping use of AUR completely. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

3 3

What to do now?
by Magnus Therning 12 Oct '10

12 Oct '10

Now that Don has decided to focus his Herculean powers in other directions I wonder what people feel should be the plan for the future. Do we try to fix up Don's tools and scripts so that they are more conducive to team work? Do we give up on having all of Hackage in AUR and instead rely on tools like bauerbill? Do we try to do something like what Xyne suggested--set up a Haskell ABS and publish pre-compiled packages in [arch-haskell]? /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

6 21

Fwd: [arch-haskell] Layout of ABS tree for Haskell packages?
by Rémy Oudompheng 12 Oct '10

12 Oct '10

Most mailing-lists use a Reply-To: header to make sure mailing clients reply to the mailing-list rather than to the author by default, is there a misconfiguration somewhere ? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rémy Oudompheng <remyoudompheng(a)gmail.com> Date: 2010/10/12 Subject: Re: [arch-haskell] Layout of ABS tree for Haskell packages? To: Magnus Therning <magnus(a)therning.org> On 2010/10/12 Magnus Therning <magnus(a)therning.org> wrote: > I've just downloaded all 1937 packages maintained by arch-haskell on > AUR, and I'm about to put them all in a git repository. Before doing > that I thought I'd ask if anyone has suggestions on the directory > hierarchy in that repo? > > The only criterion I can think of is that we'd probably would want > binary and source packages separated in some way. I should say that > this is mostly a hunch on my part so I'm more than willing to be > convinced otherwise. So, based on this hunch I'm currently leaning > towards the following layout: > > habs > ├── bin > │ ├── befunge93 > │ │ └── PKGBUILD > │ ├── berp > │ │ ├── berp.install > │ │ └── PKGBUILD > │ │ ... > ├── aur > │ ├── addlicenseinfo > │ │ └── PKGBUILD > │ ├── advgame > │ │ └── PKGBUILD > │ │ ... > > Any thought or comments on this. I'm particularly interested in > comments from people who have experience with working with the > ABS-related tools. I don't think there is such thing as "ABS-related tools", unless you are more specific. I can only share my knowledge of how we are organised for official repos (core/extra...). Our layout, as I may have explained in an older thread, is rather root * advgame * - trunk * - repo * berp * - trunk * - repo ... The idea being than work-in-progress is kept is trunk, and repo is a snapshot of PKGBUILDs which are building correctly. I think your layout is okay too. Do you know if binary packages can be hosted somewhere ? My idea is that if a package can be built successfully, some script would be able to upload this binary package to a FTP server, as well a backuping the PKGBUILD from the "aur" area to the "bin" area so that PKGBUILDs there match the binary packages. The "bin" area is the "ABS" tree, while the "aur" area is the "AUR" tree. -- Rémy.

1 0

[PATCH] Adapt to recent style changes for PKGBUILDs
by Rémy Oudompheng 11 Oct '10

11 Oct '10

This patch modifies cabal2arch to adapt to recent changes in makepkg : * the "|| return 1" are not needed, the build function exits automatically when encountering errors * the build() function is now split into the build() function and the package() function, such that build() never touches $pkgdir. -- Rémy.

3 3

Re: [arch-haskell] What to do now?
by Magnus Therning 11 Oct '10

11 Oct '10

On 09/10/10 23:17, Rémy Oudompheng wrote: > Magnus Therning <magnus(a)therning.org> wrote: >> On 09/10/10 09:43, Rémy Oudompheng wrote: [...] >>> - a darcs repo for the PKGBUILDs >> >> 1. Are you suggesting we keep binary versions of *all* of hackage in a repo, >> or >> 2. we keep PKGBUILDs for all of hackage in an ABS tree, and only provide >> binaries for a subset of packages? > > I suggest we keep PKGBUILDs for as many packages as we want, and provide > binary packages for either each of them, or just a subset, for example the > set of packages currently on AUR, and add packages to that list on demand. The set of packages currently on AUR is *huge*, I think Don recently mentioned something in the order of 2000 haskell packages on AUR, and that is about 10% of AUR. I would suggest starting somewhat smaller than that :-) Maybe starting from Haskell Platform and growing on demand from that? >>> * one dir per package, and subdirs $package/trunk, $package/repo >>> (holding the current WIP version of the PKGBUILD and one corresponding >>> to the binary package in repo) >>> * people are supposed to do only a partial checkout of the darcs repo, >>> I know Git can do that, but that said, a full working copy is only a >>> few thousand files. Is darcs as efficient as Git for storage ? I >>> expect the transfer size for a full cloning to be less than 5MB. >> >> It's worth clarifying here that while git does support partial checkout it >> doesn't support partial cloning. darcs supports lazy cloning, and I >> think git >> does as well. >> >> Just to get some numbers I downloaded the cabal files for for the latest >> version of all packages on Hackage. Then I ran cabal2arch on it all. After >> that I attempted to put the results in darcs and git. >> >> Adding all files, 100 at a time: >> >> * darcs: 522.18s user 5.49s system 99% cpu 8:48.96 total >> * git: 1.90s user 0.77s system 97% cpu 2.726 total >> >> Record/commit of initial changeset: >> >> * darcs: NA, it seems frozen with: 5548 done, 5480 queued >> * git: 0.33s user 0.32s system 57% cpu 1.128 total >> >> There are a total of 4528 files in the (git) repo and 'du -sh' says that it >> takes 57M. > > Thank you. What is the size of the git repo itself (I mean the .git > subdir) ? It is probably only a few megabytes, so it can probably be > hosted anywhere. The size of the .git dir is: % du -sh .git 30M .git For comparison I changed strategy for darcs, instead I recorded each package in its own changeset: Total time to add and record: 7638.14s user 1108.26s system 99% cpu 2:26:04.82 total Size of the whole work area: 436M Size of _darcs: 409M /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

4 4

arch-haskell repo and ABS tree
by Xyne 09 Oct '10

09 Oct '10

Hi, I want to suggest that the Arch Haskell group create their own repo and ABS tree, and withdraw from the AUR. Requests to orphan neglected haskell packages come up relatively often on the aur-general mailing list and the lack of active support is a cause of frustration, even if it is understandable. Creating a separate binary repo and an ABS tree would provide consistency and could be made official (maybe hosted on archlinux.org and mirrored, or hackage). Users who wish to maintain haskell packages in the AUR could then do so without interfering with global consistency. Those who need newer packages could enable the AUR via e.g. bauerbill and those who simply wish to have access to the full set provided by Arch Haskell would enable the repo or build from its ABS tree. Maybe I could even provide support in bauerbill. Is this reasonable? Feasible? Regards, Xyne

5 11