[arch-general] Re: pacman new generation

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

The 22/11/11, Piyush P Kurur wrote:

> Many here will agree to almost all the points that you raised about
> Haskell. However the way the you introdued might have irked some.

I'm sorry about that. Poor circumstances might give this wrong
impression.

> Here is how one would go about suggesting such a changes:
> 
> "Hi folks I was interested to know whether implementing rollbacks like
> NixOS is interesting for people here. Since I feel that C is too low
> level as a first step  I am attempting a port of pacman to Haskell.
> The code is available under darcs at http://somewhere.org/me/
> Patches are welcome. The current version does nothign but prints
> package meta info.
> 
> Regards
> 
> me"

Notice I'm not the OP show suggested porting pacman to Haskell. I came
into this thread after the facts and tried hard to make the original
suggestion as a part of the larger POV in favor of high-level languages.

Also, I don't want to flame and rather keep the discussion out of free
attacks against the current team of developers. I took part of this
thread only because I've already been faced to pacman limitations in its
current form.

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht