[arch-haskell] Layout of ABS tree for Haskell packages?
magnus at therning.org
Sat Oct 12 07:36:52 UTC 2013
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 16:07, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
>> > Magnus> I've just downloaded all 1937 packages maintained by
>> > Magnus> arch-haskell on AUR, and I'm about to put them all in a git
>> > Magnus> repository. Before doing that I thought I'd ask if anyone has
>> > Magnus> suggestions on the directory hierarchy in that repo?
>> > What do you think about mimic the Hackage hierarchy?
>> It wouldn't be possible to mimic it completely since hackage allows
>> several categories for a single package. However, the packages in AUR
>> all have a single category (even though I'm not sure how they get
>> them), maybe we could use that.
> I would ignore the AUR categories completely in the git repo. Those categories
> are largely ignored by Arch and may be removed later. Also, as the ABS and
> binary repos will be separate from the AUR, I see no reason to use those
>> > Magnus> The only criterion I can think of is that we'd probably would
>> > Magnus> want binary and source packages separated in some way.
>> > I agree with that. Binaries could go all in one bin directory (there
>> > is no binary category in Hackage ;) )
> I don't see the point of making such a distinction in the git repo. Whether the
> package is distributed in binary or source form has no effect on the PKGBUILD
> and local source files. I think the git repo should be agnostic of what is done
> with the packages downstream.
> To maintain the binary repo we will need to create some tools. Those tools can
> use a separate list of packages to determine what to build. Changing that list
> will therefore not alter the hierarchy in the git repo.
> Categorization can be added to some interface for accessing the PKGBUILDs
> (e.g. on Hackage, archlinux.org or elsewhere). That would enable packages to
> follow the same categorization that Hackage uses, including multiple categories
> for a single package. It would also be more homogeneous and intuitive,
> preventing confusion when using both hackage and our ABS system.
> Basically, I think we should keep everything modular as far as possible.
Good arguments. I think so far I'm leaning towards putting all 1937
package directories at the top-level.
> Other thoughts:
> * The translation table of Hackage names to Arch names (currently hardcoded
> into cabal2arch) should be easily accessible programmatically for use in
> scripts and other tools (e.g. bauerbill).
That's on the todo-list.
Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org
http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
More information about the arch-haskell