On 2011/1/10 Peter Simons
Hi Rémy,
> I added [ArchPackage] because I thought it was a better type for the > output of the conversion function (since the output is really a > PKGBUILD + Maybe an install script), but I didn't use it yet. I'd > prefer keeping it for the moment.
you are right. I agree that this type is a good choice to represent the result of a cabal-to-pkgbuild conversion.
At the same time, I am a little concerned about the seemingly increasing amount of dead code in the ArchLinux library. Note that the ArchPackage type has been added on 2010-10-15, and since then it's been sitting there unused. Furthermore, note that the export list for PkgBuild.hs doesn't mention that type. So, not only is it unused, it's actually impossible to use because the outside world can't access it.
Clearly, the ArchPackage type is part of an ongoing effort to re-factor the cabal2pkg function. That is a good idea and I am totally in favor of it. I would like to suggest, however, that this kind of re-factoring is performed in a branch and merged into 'master' only after it's complete.
Does that sound reasonable?
Yes, perfectly reasonable. -- Rémy.