pandoc, git-annex, and xmonad are available in [haskell-core]; no need to
compile anything yourself or pull down extra dependencies.
As far as providing only build of binary command-line programs (and not
libs) and building needed libs for each tool in a sandbox build; that's
been discussed over on the mac side w/ brew.
I for one *really* appreciate having binary installs of haskell libs
available. Some take *forever* to compile (e.g. llvm-general), and I
really like having one consistent set of libs to worry about and not having
to figure out library version number juggling myself. I use a lot of
haskell tools, and I also compile haskell programs / do development in
haskell. If a lib's already been compiled into a package, it's making that
available for other computers to install, rather than make other boxes
recompile that themselves.
For things not in [haskell-core], I've been using cabal2arch to make
PKGBUILDs, put those on AUR, and install those myself. I don't have
anything cabal-install'd at the user level.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Jeff Johnson
Hi everyone!
I've been becoming more and more dependent on Haskell programs lately. There aren't many popular ones (yet!), but those that do exist seem uncommonly good and have quickly become core parts of my workflow: pandoc, gitit, git-annex, and hoodle are the main ones so far, plus maybe xmonad.
But they also seem idiosyncratic and hard to install: builds often fail, pacman spits tons of errors even when upgrading successfully, you sometimes have to reinstall them all at once to maintain compatibility, etc. I've read these pages:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.arch-linux/1743 http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Haskell_package_guidelines
And I'm confused about the point of separate [haskell-*] repositories. Why all the overhead? The simplest thing I could imagine working would be a PKGBUILD with a "snapshot" of compatible dependency versions. Then you could do a sandboxed build from scratch each time. Somehing like:
_pkgname=hoodle pkgname=$_pkgname-cabal ... makedepends=('cabal-git') # sandboxes introduced in 1.18 _cabaldepends=( ... 'coroutine-object-0.2.0.0' 'hoodle-types-0.2.2' 'xournal-types-0.5.0.2' 'hoodle-builder-0.2.2.0' 'hoodle-parser-0.2.2' 'xournal-parser-0.5.0.2' ... ) build() { ... cabal-git sandbox init cabal-git update cabal-git install $_cabaldepends $_pkgname-$pkgver ... }
The only downside would be a lot of compilation, but that could be solved the same way it is for non-Haskell packages: popular ones get adopted into [community]. Does that sound sensible? Or am I on the way to deciding I should contribute to an existing repository? Should I just try it and see?
Oh and apologies if this has been answered; I just joined the mailing list. Jeff
_______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list arch-haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell