On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
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?
I wouldn't actually be opposed to this idea.
A lot of effort is duplicated with regards to Archlinux's official haskell packages and Arch-Haskell's packages.
We could try to work out something between the existing haskell package maintainers and arch-haskell maintainers.
It might lead to a possibly better overall haskell experience on archlinux.
Arch-haskell could maintain official haskell packages using pacman. I (and anyone interested) could support haskell package installation using the cabal-install route.
On 2014-04-10 06:39, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
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?
I wouldn't actually be opposed to this idea.
A lot of effort is duplicated with regards to Archlinux's official haskell packages and Arch-Haskell's packages.
We could try to work out something between the existing haskell package maintainers and arch-haskell maintainers.
It might lead to a possibly better overall haskell experience on archlinux.
Arch-haskell could maintain official haskell packages using pacman. I (and anyone interested) could support haskell package installation using the cabal-install route.
Would this mean that only "ghc" and "cabal-install" would be in any of the official repos and that everything else would be relegated to "arch-haskell"? If so, then +1. (As mentioned in another email I think Haskell distro packaging in general could use a rethink, possibly based on sandboxing.)
Regards,
arch-general@lists.archlinux.org