On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Magnus Therning
This are my suggestions:
1. Magnus keep a [haskell-base] repository. This MUST be an Arch repo in sync with a github repo. 2. Both repositories (Arch and git) should be available for maintainers of other repository. 3. Maintainer of [haskell-web] (me) MUST update it's repo to keep in sync with base in a reasonable time. 4. After this time a “global maintainer” (Magnus, Ramana, me, whoever) can grab all packages from both repositories and put them in a new one: [haskell] 5. Only [haskell] is intended for end users.
A “reasonable time” could be 3 days. I saw that Magnus updates the repo on Wednesday and on Saturday/Sunday: so before the next update [haskell-web] should be in sync.
I developed [haskell-web] in a way that it will not duplicate packages from [haskell]: I use them as DistroPkg. Updating is easy with `cbladmin` [^1], there's no need to modify `cblrepo`, maybe you could merge (and develop) some ideas from there. But this is not the main point. The main point is to be in sync, or else I'm just wasting my time, as [haskell-web] will never be really useful.
The big piece that's missing above is how to handle failures to upgrade a package caused by a dependant not allowing the upgrade. Do we hold off the base-test repo then? I currently upgrade everything I can in one transaction, what if one of the packages requires holding back due to a dependant. Would that require a partial roll-back in the base-test repo?
I don't understand the issue here. The only requirement is that the [haskell-base] Arch repo and github repo are always in sync with each other. I don't think a change to haskell-base necessarily needs to be only version updates, there might be rollbacks if they are necessary. But whatever changes are made to haskell-base, eventually haskell-web and other haskell- repos will be made to work with it (in a reasonable time), and then when a good state is reached, [haskell] itself can be updated. So it's always in a good state. It might mean waiting longer for updates to make their way from hackage to [haskell].
It's questions like these that I don't have a good answer to. And yes, both situations have occurred in the past. They both cause a bit of work (though not so much if they are caught already at 'clbrepo updates' time).
/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