Hello,<div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">2011/11/12 Magnus Therning <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:magnus@therning.org">magnus@therning.org</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
</div>It would be excellent if more people could work on keeping [haskell]<br>
up-to-date :)<br>
<br>
However, splitting updating the database and the building of packages<br>
is likely to be a bit painful.  So far my experience is that updating<br>
packages to a buildable state often requires a few iterations of<br>
modifying patch files and attempting builds.  If each such iteration<br>
requires communication it&#39;s likely to drag out quite a bit.  The ideal<br>
would be a build server really.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
/M<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>why should we drop packages?  Unless we are running out of space on the repository server we shouldn&#39;t. So I think we should find a solution to decentralize the building process. So a build server could be okay. Is it a problem to have a maintainer that check <i>some</i> packages, and not everything? The main maintainer should only put everything together, maybe periodically, so the others know when to submit updates and when to wait for the next one.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Are you sure this will be more painful than build everything by your own on your laptop?</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Fabio</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div>