
Hi, I recently found out arch-haskell has completely split from using archlinux. I was wondering what your future plans are for arch-haskell as you have become a completely separate entity. (providing all your own packages) I expressed in a previous mail that I would like to work together rather than having you guys split off from arch completely, but that is your choice. I also read some mails on this ml about getting official status. Splitting off completely and not communicating your intentions with me is not going to get you an official status if that is your intention. Instead, communication and coordination with me is crucial for that to have any chance. I am still for working together, but we need to start talking if you also want to work together. Otherwise, I wish this community the very best of luck if you choose to completely split. Cheers!

Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
Hi,
I recently found out arch-haskell has completely split from using archlinux. I was wondering what your future plans are for arch-haskell as you have become a completely separate entity. (providing all your own packages) I expressed in a previous mail that I would like to work together rather than having you guys split off from arch completely, but that is your choice.
I also read some mails on this ml about getting official status. Splitting off completely and not communicating your intentions with me is not going to get you an official status if that is your intention. Instead, communication and coordination with me is crucial for that to have any chance.
I am still for working together, but we need to start talking if you also want to work together. Otherwise, I wish this community the very best of luck if you choose to completely split.
Cheers!
Hi, Haskell packages require topological rebuilds and that always seems to cause problems when a rebuild needs to be coordinated across 3+ repos with even more packagers. The recent updates have left several users in dependency hell and unable to upgrade their systems. In theory you could put all of the packages either in [extra] or in [community] to more easily manage the rebuilds, but no one with access to those repos is going to do that (the tools aren't in place, and getting them in place would be an uphill battle). Besides, it really makes sense to have them in a separate Haskell repo. They form a large set of related packages, and they require highly coordinated rebuilds. Magnus has both the skills and motivation to maintain such a repo. Official status or not, the goal is to provide working packages for the user and this will do just that. The redundancy with [extra] and [community] is unfortunate, but ideally the devs would realize that this approach is optimal and support this repo. Redundant packages could then be removed from other repos. Please don't see this as stepping on your toes. Try to see the benefits of this approach and support it as it will vastly improve the end-user experience for all Archers who use Haskell. Regards, Xyne

I am just a user, but imho when two forces are willing to join forces it
shouldn't be dismiss too easily. (it might be justified in this case though)
Anyway, I don't think Thomas argues about the technical details, but he
just want more cooperation, communication. We all agree this is a good
thing, right?
His post is a favor to us, I think, because it is the door to official Arch
and possibly making the state of Haskell in Arch better for everyone.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Xyne
Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
Hi,
I recently found out arch-haskell has completely split from using archlinux. I was wondering what your future plans are for arch-haskell as you have become a completely separate entity. (providing all your own packages) I expressed in a previous mail that I would like to work together rather than having you guys split off from arch completely, but that is your choice.
I also read some mails on this ml about getting official status. Splitting off completely and not communicating your intentions with me is not going to get you an official status if that is your intention. Instead, communication and coordination with me is crucial for that to have any chance.
I am still for working together, but we need to start talking if you also want to work together. Otherwise, I wish this community the very best of luck if you choose to completely split.
Cheers!
Hi,
Haskell packages require topological rebuilds and that always seems to cause problems when a rebuild needs to be coordinated across 3+ repos with even more packagers. The recent updates have left several users in dependency hell and unable to upgrade their systems.
In theory you could put all of the packages either in [extra] or in [community] to more easily manage the rebuilds, but no one with access to those repos is going to do that (the tools aren't in place, and getting them in place would be an uphill battle).
Besides, it really makes sense to have them in a separate Haskell repo. They form a large set of related packages, and they require highly coordinated rebuilds.
Magnus has both the skills and motivation to maintain such a repo. Official status or not, the goal is to provide working packages for the user and this will do just that.
The redundancy with [extra] and [community] is unfortunate, but ideally the devs would realize that this approach is optimal and support this repo. Redundant packages could then be removed from other repos.
Please don't see this as stepping on your toes. Try to see the benefits of this approach and support it as it will vastly improve the end-user experience for all Archers who use Haskell.
Regards, Xyne
_______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list arch-haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell

Haskell packages require topological rebuilds and that always seems to cause problems when a rebuild needs to be coordinated across 3+ repos with even more packagers. +1 for one repository containing all ghc-dependent packages. And
On 03/07/2012 05:28 AM, Xyne wrote: preferably remove them from the other repositories.
In theory you could put all of the packages either in [extra] or in [community] to more easily manage the rebuilds, but no one with access to those repos is going to do that (the tools aren't in place, and getting them in place would be an uphill battle). I would also like if:
1) Either all haskell packages from extra/community would get a group like ghcDependency so tahat I can disable them easily in pacman.conf. 2) Or all the haskell packages in [haskell] would get a a different group name (e.g. haskellRepository) so that I can differentiate them from the packages from extra/community. This is to avoid confusion at user side when he needs to figure out what repository a package is from. Pacman does not store this info - so if you have something installed there is no easy way to find out what repository it is from.
The redundancy with [extra] and [community] is unfortunate, but ideally the devs would realize that this approach is optimal and support this repo. Redundant packages could then be removed from other repos. In a small voice: Or, please, at least add a group name for a ghc-dependent packages? A different group name for the ones in [extra]/[community] and the ones in [haskell].
Thanks to all the maintainers of haskell packages, Peter.

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Peter Hercek

On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 08:21:50PM -0600, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
Hi,
I recently found out arch-haskell has completely split from using archlinux. I was wondering what your future plans are for arch-haskell as you have become a completely separate entity. (providing all your own packages)
Yes, that is the route I've turned onto. I think it's worthwhile to do this at this point. Xyne has expressed many of the reasons for doing this. There are however a two other points I'd like to add: - A dependency on official Arch packages is a bit of a pain to maintain due to the lack of good sources of information about changes to Arch repos. - A minor point is that Arch has some "rules" that put limits on packaging: only released software is packaged, and patches are strongly discouraged.
I also read some mails on this ml about getting official status. Splitting off completely and not communicating your intentions with me is not going to get you an official status if that is your intention. Instead, communication and coordination with me is crucial for that to have any chance.
Then you also read that I don't have official status as a goal, it would be a *bonus*, nothing more, nothing less. /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
participants (6)
-
Garry Roseman
-
Jonathan Lahav
-
Magnus Therning
-
Peter Hercek
-
Thomas Dziedzic
-
Xyne