Hi Peter, 2011/6/26 Peter Simons <[email protected]>: > > 1) In order to test for broken packages, do I really need to use the > > makeworld script? I think it would take too much time! > > Unfortunately, distributing Haskell packages is a fairly complicated > affair, mostly because these packages interact with each other in > complex ways. Some problems can be caught without running a test build, > but not all of them. My experience is that running 'makeworld' is the > only way to be sure that the repository is in a consistent state.
It seems to me that you're speaking about core packages, needed by many others. I think that these packages should be in the repository, others don't interact much: a web framework with a game, for example. My main fear is spending time in compiling, not the builing process itself. > > > 2) Past discussions suggest me that the group is centred on a small > > number of packages to put in a binary repository. It's wonderful to > > have this, but it takes a very long time. What do you think if some > > people concentrate in the simplest and fastest task of preparing > > PKGBUILDs and put them in a place (i.e. AUR) where the core group > > decide witch package worth an inclusion in the repo? > > It is possible to update packages on AUR without building them first. > So, yes, we could split this effort into one that updates AUR and one > that maintains the binary repository. Past experience suggests, though, > that packages that are being published without being built first tend to > be very unreliable. This means that users will run into build problems, > and then they'll complain on AUR or on this list -- and rightfully so! > Dealing with those issues, however, is a lot of effort. I'm not sure > whether publishing untested PKGBUILDs is going to be very helpful for > the general user base. I wrote very badly what I was thinking: you're perfectly right: packages must be tested. Before updating AUR I would compile the needed dependencies and only that, faster then makeword (that remember me the old bad times with Gentoo :-) ). > > > 3) For Peter: could you please give some help information on how to > > use the scripts in > > https://github.com/peti/arch-haskell/tree/master/scripts ? > > I'll try to describe my work-flow briefly: > [...] The work flow can feet, but know you and me have a compiled repo, hopefully the same. Still someone (I assume you) has to copy it to the [Haskell] repo server and update the AUR. Unless this work is totally automated, it sound like a bad bottle-neck, but I have to understand more of you procedure, I hope I'm very wrong on this. > > 4) Why haskell packages in extra depends on ghc-7.0.3 (still in testing)? > > There is an update of GHC available in [testing], and unfortunately some > packages have been published that were built with that newer GHC version > before GHC itself is available. In short, Haskell support is currently > broken in ArchLinux. Unfortunately, these things happen, but it's most > probably going to be remedied soon. That's bad. Now pacman tells me that ghc-7.0.3 is here. So ALL haskell repository must be recompiled, isn't it? If I use your "push" script and add +1 to pkgrel is ok? Maybe it's better if I wait a little. It's a shame, because now I have some time to spend... Well, I'll try your method it, I only need to understand things. Bye Fabio _______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
