Hi Magnus,
For the moment you can always create a fork to share your patches with Remy directly. There's no need to wait for an official repo.
you are right, there is no need to create an official repo for the build tool chain yet. Is there any particular reason why you feel we should wait?
This would take the place of the current habs repo.
Yes, I agree. We could import Remy's work into a branch of habs, say "new-master", and merge that into "master" eventually.
I think it's best to create a new repo for it though, any suggestion for the name?
Do we really need another repository? Personally, I feel it's sufficient to create a branch in haps.
Just let me know when you think there is a repo that is in good enough state to make it official.
I think Remy's system is ready for that. I tried to build my own arch-haskell repo with his toolchain, and it worked like a charm in less than an hour. His script just ties the various ArchHaskell devtools together; it's quite simple and straight-forward. Based on this experience, I feel the system is good and ready to be used.
- Cabal package name, - Cabal package version, - ArchHaskell package name, and
I thought this was dealt with automatically by cabal2arch. Is that functionality not good enough to keep on using?
Yes, I completely agree. cabal2arch is getting the job done fine. We will probably have to extend it, though, so that we can pass an ArchLinux pkgrel number that it ought to use to generate the PKGBUILD file. The alternative is that we patch those files in a separate phase after cabal2arch has run, but my impression is that it would be cleaner to let cabal2arch generate the proper version directly. Take care, Peter