| 1 |
Hi Klaus, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 2018-10-05 07:55, Klaus Ethgen wrote: |
| 4 |
> Currently I suffer from the bad haskell hell. I need the current |
| 5 |
> git-annex that is only available in the haskell overlay. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> (...) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Isn't there a way to escape the haskell dependency hell? Is there a |
| 10 |
> clean way to compile and use haskell stuff? That is a real nightmare. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
first of all, let me tell you that I am not a Haskell expert and the |
| 13 |
following is only based on my personal experience. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I had similar problems with using pandoc, which also guides me in the |
| 16 |
"Haskell hell", as you call it. However, since I added 'dev-haskell/*' |
| 17 |
into my package.keywords, I have not experienced anything problematic |
| 18 |
anymore. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
As for rebuilds and preserved libs, sometimes (rarely) after big updates |
| 21 |
I get segmentation faults and the like with Haskell packages. Since I |
| 22 |
have "buildpkg" in my FEATURES, I can do the following: Remove the |
| 23 |
complete dev-haskell folder in my bin-package directory, plus maybe the |
| 24 |
packages, that depend on them, so app-text/pandoc or dev-vcs/git-annex. |
| 25 |
And then I recompile every package, that does not have a binary package |
| 26 |
present. This way, even if some packages fail because of OOM or the |
| 27 |
like, I can just continue where I left off, because the succeeded |
| 28 |
ebuilds created binary packages. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I have never used haskell-updater, I never needed to. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
So, to summarize: |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
- dev-haskell/* to package.keywords |
| 35 |
- use buildpkg when compiling/upgrading haskell |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Disclaimer: Your experience MAY vary. ;-) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Regards |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Flo |
Archives