Il 06/05/2013 07:47, Johan Holmquist ha scritto:

Sounds good =)

Not really! I tried the easy and risky way, by updating all packages and I failed! I'm going to reinsert carefully everything, but to rebuild all 230 packages is going to take some time. Sorry for this. Fabio

2013/5/5 Fabio Riga mailto:rifabio@gmail.com>

Il 05/05/2013 11:44, Pierre Radermecker ha scritto: > Hi, > > If I am not mistaken, [Haskell-web] is no more in sync with > [haskell-core]. For isntance, the package "haskell-lens" cannot be > installed with ghc 7.6.3. > > Can I expect a fix in a couple of days or should I go with cabal in the > meanwhile ? > > Cheers, > > - Pierre

I'm very sorry, it should be in sync by now, but I was very busy this week. I'll start updating now: if everything is okay, tomorrow night [haskell-web] will be in sync.

Fabio

_______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list arch-haskell@haskell.org mailto:arch-haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell

Il 22/05/2013 16:57, Pierre Radermecker ha scritto:

Hello Fabio,

Any update ? It has been broken for quite a while now. I guess we are only a few using the web repo (as so few souls are complaining) but it might be fair to update the doc and flag the web repo as out-of-dated.

Just for information, I have been moving along using cabal and cabal-dev in the meanwhile.

Cheers,

Sorry for this. I've got a new job and at the moment my thoughts are elsewhere. I think I put in the repo too many packages, because I head time to do it. But now I simply can't spend all this time in this project. Moreover it seems to me that this repo has just a couple of users; occasionally somebody pop out with a request and nobody has ever tried to help. So please continue in using cabal, because perhaps [habs-web] no longer has a reason to exist. Fabio

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Fabio Riga wrote:

Il 22/05/2013 16:57, Pierre Radermecker ha scritto:

...

Hello Fabio,

Any update ? It has been broken for quite a while now. I guess we are only a few using the web repo (as so few souls are complaining) but it might be fair to update the doc and flag the web repo as out-of-dated.

Just for information, I have been moving along using cabal and cabal-dev in the meanwhile.

Cheers,

Sorry for this. I've got a new job and at the moment my thoughts are elsewhere. I think I put in the repo too many packages, because I head time to do it. But now I simply can't spend all this time in this project. Moreover it seems to me that this repo has just a couple of users; occasionally somebody pop out with a request and nobody has ever tried to help.

So please continue in using cabal, because perhaps [habs-web] no longer has a reason to exist.

Please let me know if you /do/ retire [habs-web] as there might be a number of commonly used packages in there that ought to be moved into [haskell-core]. I'm guessing you don't have any kind of usage statistics on the packages, do you? ;) /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@therning.org jabber: magnus@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus

Quoting Ramana Kumar (2013-05-29 09:45:19)

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

Please let me know if you /do/ retire [habs-web] as there might be a number of commonly used packages in there that ought to be moved into [haskell-core]. I'm guessing you don't have any kind of usage statistics on the packages, do you? ;)

I think it's best to consider habs-web retired as of now, since it currently has no maintainer. However, as far as moving packages goes, it would probably be fine to wait until someone explicitly asks for something that was in web to be made available in core.

I am/was also a user of habs-web for roughly two use-cases: * haskell programs such as git-annex or notmuch-web [0] that I want to build once and install multiple times. * my strategy to reduce compilation time was to install all binary haskell packages available and then use cabal install for the rest. I wolud like to also suggest that as long as storage permits we should keep the latest version of a working set of packages for each version of GHC. This does not cost much to just keep a copy before trying an upgrade and this would help users migrating. [0]: https://bitbucket.org/wuzzeb/notmuch-web/

Quoting Pierre Radermecker (2013-05-29 14:02:19)

...

 I am/was also a user of habs-web for roughly two use-cases:   * haskell programs such as git-annex or notmuch-web [0] that I want     to build once and install multiple times.

Personally I don't think it makes much sense to include "programs" such a yesod or git-annex in [haskell-core]

This is not what I meant.

Git-annex for instance requires a lot of dependencies which make it quite tricky to build from source. I had much luck with it by just using the provided binary tar. For the record, at some point, various aur package were failing to bring a working git-annex because of some sort of incompatibilities with the arch curl system version (to my knowledge the provided [haskell-web] package has never work).

I would like to see as many of git-annex/notmuch-web/... dependencies supported in either [haskell-core] or repos similar to [haskell-web]. For instance all git-annex dependencies are supported by Debian (yes the developer is a Debian packager). What should be aimed at, IMHO is to provide a larger set of packages at a smaller cost or at least better distributed.

Quoting Magnus Therning (2013-05-30 18:27:26)

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 01:15:50PM +0200, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:

...

Quoting Ramana Kumar (2013-05-29 09:45:19)

...

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

Please let me know if you /do/ retire [habs-web] as there might be a number of commonly used packages in there that ought to be moved into [haskell-core]. I'm guessing you don't have any kind of usage statistics on the packages, do you? ;)

I think it's best to consider habs-web retired as of now, since it currently has no maintainer. However, as far as moving packages goes, it would probably be fine to wait until someone explicitly asks for something that was in web to be made available in core.

I am/was also a user of habs-web for roughly two use-cases: * haskell programs such as git-annex or notmuch-web [0] that I want to build once and install multiple times. * my strategy to reduce compilation time was to install all binary haskell packages available and then use cabal install for the rest.

I wolud like to also suggest that as long as storage permits we should keep the latest version of a working set of packages for each version of GHC. This does not cost much to just keep a copy before trying an upgrade and this would help users migrating.

I don't think I understand what you mean by "we should keep the latest version of a working set of packages for each version of GHC". Would you mind describing in a few more words what that means?

I mean to spawn off a frozen repo for at least the previous release of GHC. Repos could be named such as [haskell-core-7.6.2]. Is that reasonable? -- NP

Quoting Magnus Therning (2013-06-30 00:19:02)

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:15:28PM +0200, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:

...

Quoting Magnus Therning (2013-05-30 18:27:26)

...

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 01:15:50PM +0200, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:

...

Quoting Ramana Kumar (2013-05-29 09:45:19)

...

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

Please let me know if you /do/ retire [habs-web] as there might be a number of commonly used packages in there that ought to be moved into [haskell-core]. I'm guessing you don't have any kind of usage statistics on the packages, do you? ;)

I think it's best to consider habs-web retired as of now, since it currently has no maintainer. However, as far as moving packages goes, it would probably be fine to wait until someone explicitly asks for something that was in web to be made available in core.

I am/was also a user of habs-web for roughly two use-cases: * haskell programs such as git-annex or notmuch-web [0] that I want to build once and install multiple times. * my strategy to reduce compilation time was to install all binary haskell packages available and then use cabal install for the rest.

I wolud like to also suggest that as long as storage permits we should keep the latest version of a working set of packages for each version of GHC. This does not cost much to just keep a copy before trying an upgrade and this would help users migrating.

I don't think I understand what you mean by "we should keep the latest version of a working set of packages for each version of GHC". Would you mind describing in a few more words what that means?

I mean to spawn off a frozen repo for at least the previous release of GHC. Repos could be named such as [haskell-core-7.6.2].

Is that reasonable?

No, at least not if you are suggesting having several repos, with the same set of pacakges, but compiled with different versions of GHC. Maintaining that would require a bit more time than I have to offer, and for me personally it's of no interest whatsoever to maintain a repo for an old version of GHC.

The point was *not* to maintain it just keep it there for those who prefer not to upgrade now.

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 04:48:01AM -0700, Pierre Radermecker wrote:

However, as far as moving packages goes, it would probably be fine to wait until someone explicitly asks for something that was in web to be made available in core.

I would like to ask for haskell-lens. It is not really web based, don't have much dependencies ...

I had been surprised to see it sit on haskell-web so it would be awesome to see it on haskell-core.

Do you mean http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens ?

Cabal-dev would be nice (it was not in haskell-web).

Another nice addition would be haskell-pipes when the whole suit is ready.

Is it only http://hackage.haskell.org/package/pipes or do you mean the entire pipes-* set? /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@therning.org jabber: magnus@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid with millions of bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, but just done by brute force and thousands of slaves. -- Alan Kay