Re: [arch-haskell] What to do now?

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:55:47 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:

On 09/10/10 23:17, Rémy Oudompheng wrote:

...

Magnus Therning 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?

Sure we should take care that the Haskell Platform works nicely. Basically the hard ones are those depending on external libraries, we have to manually take care of them. Then packages only made of pure Haskell code on top of that should be automatically built. Maybe one can start with recent uploads to Hackage and transitively build/package their dependencies. [...]

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

Let's forget darcs for this kind of task. -- Nicolas Pouillard http://nicolaspouillard.fr