On 09/04/14 11:12 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

On 10/04/14 12:58, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:

...

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

...

I'm guessing this means cabal-install now is the only package outside of [community] that uses ghc to build. Is that right?

That would be correct.

...

...

Is the plan then that any future tools (i.e. non-libraries) implemented in Haskell would go into [community]?

This would also be correct. I believe that most people who use packages in our supported repos don't actually use the haskell libraries themselves, but rather the tools that depend on them. (e.g. xmonad) I am not against keeping these tools around and their dependencies if someone wants to maintain them, but I personally have no interest in maintaining them myself.

I am fine with this decision. Although I think it better to use a system package manager if at all possible, I do recognise that this takes man power that we do not have for haskell. People still have the option of using the AUR over cabal-install if they want to use the package manager (or system wide installs - is cabal-install a per user thing?)

<aside> In my ideal situation, we would have a team of people for each of the "major" programming languages who would determine packaging policy and provide packages for many of the libraries for that language. Sort of like how we have multiple people who deal with KDE and GNOME updates. With a team based setup, it would be easier to have more junior people brought on to help. </aside>

Now that aside is finished, what is the deal with that arch-haskell group? Is it still going? Would they want to provide packages officially instead?

It's definitely still active. They seem to have all the necessary automation worked out. AFAICT they do an automated conversion from the cabal files and maintain a set of patches for adding external dependencies, etc. https://github.com/archhaskell