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: magnus@therning.org jabber: magnus@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