On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Fabio Riga <[email protected]> wrote:
> In data 20.09.2012 17:34:15, Nicolas Pouillard ha scritto: > >> Thanks it seems to work great! >> > Thank you! Please note that this is a test. So expect this to break in > some way. > >> >> Can you tell how easy to maintain a repository (cblrepo) on top of the >> archhaskell one. I did thought about forking habs but it is a waste of >> time. However building another repo on top of it might provide with a >> nice distributed nature allowing us to maintain the package we care the >> most about. >> >> Did you took special steps, how do you merge the cblrepo from the main >> habs? >> You turn them from RepoPackages to DistroPackages right? >> > Why was this - what looks like a very interesting - message not posted to the list? > This was exactly my idea. There's no need to fork the excellent work > made by Magnus and others. I made a new repo using cblrepo. I inserted the > same GhcPkg of habs. Then I made a script for adding new packages, tracking > all dependencies using cabal install, and check them with the habs repo. If > packages are there, the script uses cblrepo to add them as DistroPkg, else > they are inserted as repo. > > The script is far from being completed and usable, and I haven't had > enough time to clean, document and publish it. I would like to make it easy > to make a new repository tracking many others, not just one. So to make, as > you told, a distributed system. > > The main problem I encountered (and everyone using [haskell-extra] will > do) is that when a package in [habs] is updated and I have a package > installed that depends on it, pacman will refuse to update the system until > [haskell-extra] is updated as well. This is unavoidable, as I need the new > package in [habs] before updating [haskell-extra]. The alternative would be > to recompile all updated packages in [habs] AND all affected package in > [haskell-extra], and I won't do this! Another way could be to have updated > packages in a private repository for a couple of days, so my repository > (and others as well) could have the time to keep in sync. With the latter > solution, we could easily merge the resulting packages in one repository. > If there is a single repository that merges all the real distributed repositiories, that is the only one that needs to be "public". I suggest renaming [haskell] (to haskell-core or haskell-init), and creating the merging repo with the name [haskell] right away, and see if it works for merging current [haskell] and current [haskell-extra]. I hereby offer my server to get this up and running initially (we can move it elsewhere as necessary later). > > I hope this clarify a little what I'm doing. Any suggestion is highly > appreciated. > My suggestion above to make the merged repo now, and the meta-suggestion to refocus on being inviting so we can easily get more people/resources/time from the community. > Fabio > > ______________________________**_________________ > arch-haskell mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell> >
_______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
