Fwd: [arch-haskell] Layout of ABS tree for Haskell packages?

Most mailing-lists use a Reply-To: header to make sure mailing clients
reply to the mailing-list rather than to the author by default, is
there a misconfiguration somewhere ?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rémy Oudompheng
I've just downloaded all 1937 packages maintained by arch-haskell on AUR, and I'm about to put them all in a git repository. Before doing that I thought I'd ask if anyone has suggestions on the directory hierarchy in that repo?
The only criterion I can think of is that we'd probably would want binary and source packages separated in some way. I should say that this is mostly a hunch on my part so I'm more than willing to be convinced otherwise. So, based on this hunch I'm currently leaning towards the following layout:
habs ├── bin │ ├── befunge93 │ │ └── PKGBUILD │ ├── berp │ │ ├── berp.install │ │ └── PKGBUILD │ │ ... ├── aur │ ├── addlicenseinfo │ │ └── PKGBUILD │ ├── advgame │ │ └── PKGBUILD │ │ ...
Any thought or comments on this. I'm particularly interested in comments from people who have experience with working with the ABS-related tools.
I don't think there is such thing as "ABS-related tools", unless you are more specific. I can only share my knowledge of how we are organised for official repos (core/extra...). Our layout, as I may have explained in an older thread, is rather root * advgame * - trunk * - repo * berp * - trunk * - repo ... The idea being than work-in-progress is kept is trunk, and repo is a snapshot of PKGBUILDs which are building correctly. I think your layout is okay too. Do you know if binary packages can be hosted somewhere ? My idea is that if a package can be built successfully, some script would be able to upload this binary package to a FTP server, as well a backuping the PKGBUILD from the "aur" area to the "bin" area so that PKGBUILDs there match the binary packages. The "bin" area is the "ABS" tree, while the "aur" area is the "AUR" tree. -- Rémy.
participants (1)
-
Rémy Oudompheng