Re: packaging postgrest, haskell patches

[Timothy Sample]

Hi Ludo and Robert,

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello Robert!
>
> Robert Vollmert <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Some questions/open issues:
>>
>> * I’ve submitted a few patches to the haskell packages
>>   that are required for this:
>>   - #36108 and #36038 fix package conflicts between ghc-included
>>     modules and packaged modules
>>   - #36499 updates the dependency ghc-primitive
>>   Should I wait for those to be merged, or lump them all
>>   together?
>> * I’m a bit unclear on where to file the various new
>>   ghc-* packages. Currently it’s more or less aribtrarily spread
>>   across a bunch of modules, compare the github link above.
>>
>>   Should I go ahead with moving towards an organization as
>>   suggested here?
>>     https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-06/msg00181.html
>
> I think we should get input from Timothy, Ricardo, and anyone with an
> interest in Haskell packaging.  But I think you’re a good candidate for
> the honorific position of Haskell Package Overseer.  :-)

Since their first contribution I’ve thinking to myself “I hope Robert
sticks around long enough to become the Haskell Package Overseer.”  :)

> Regarding the module organization, I think it makes sense to add more
> haskell-*.scm modules, though I’m unsure about the hackage splitting you
> propose—is it helpful to split it like this?
>
> Thoughts?

First, I missed the “haskell-apps” migration.  I couldn’t find any
discussion about it on the lists (maybe it was discussed and I just
can’t find it).  Since one of Robert’s suggestions is to revert it, it
would be helpful to know what prompted that change.  (I assume there is
some cost to bringing in the Haskell modules from the “version-control”
module, but I don’t know enough about it.)

To be honest, I don’t use the current categorization system for Haskell
or for anything, really.  I just search.  That being said, organizing
the Haskell packages alphabetically would be different from everything
else.  I would prefer to follow Python and Perl, if only for the sake of
consistency.  This is a very slight preference, though.

I think that splitting off the Stackage LTS packages would be a little
bit helpful for maintenance, and a little bit annoying for use, but not
significant either way.  Maybe I missed the point here?

My (slight) preference is just to copy Python, including getting rid of
“haskell-apps” (unless it is a necessary hack), and splitting off
“haskell-xyz” from “haskell”.


-- Tim