2011/12/20 Cédric Girard <girard.cedric@xxxxxxxxx> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Ethan Schoonover <es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >wrote: > > > 2. Always avoid AUR Haskell packages (they are mostly out of date) > > I'm not sure about this. First I find this unrespectful to the people > spending time maintaining Haskell PKGBUILDs in the AUR (and I'm not saying > this before I do). > No disrespect intended; this comes directly from the arch-haskell mailing list: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/arch-haskell/2011-November/001744.html Their point is specifically that many AUR haskell packages are not at all maintained. I'm sure there are some that are, but until this cull is complete or a "whitelist" of AUR haskell packages shows up, I don't know which AUR haskell packages those would be. > Second, my own experience lead me to disable [haskell] repository on my > computers because some packages were out of date but where picked before > AUR ones by the aur helper I use. > Hence the confusion around this issue. If Haskell AUR packages are indeed being deprecated then is [haskell] now more of a definitive source or is it *also* not well maintained? Take a look at that thread I link to in this mail, hopefully it will clarify my inclusion of the avoid AUR position in the rough package selection heuristic. es
