Re: following Stackage
Hi Ben,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 00:12:45 -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
> There are still about 80 of our packages not (yet) in
> Stackage: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/246720/43753298/
This is more up to upstream than us :/ . I guess we could ask upstreams
to get on with stackage?
Right. Though upstream doesn't strictly have to be the stackage owner,
though I think that should be preferred.
> I think currently we are just tracking Stackage Nightly
> but in the future we may want to track LTS or a specific
> LTS major/minor version even.
(Actually nightly is a "worse" choice since it is currently on ghc-7.10.1,
so we should be following LTS!)
I think once Beta hits, move from nightly to LTS. An LTS version can
be
determined closer to release then stick with that.
Sounds reasonable, however it needs code/config changes to anitya.
It might simpler just to track a major LTS version instead:
eg currently LTS-2, then we could decide when to switch
major LTS version in line with the Fedora development schedule.
I think LTS 3 will come out before long, and we will need it
for ghc-7.10.
> So from now on when packaging, please use the latest version
> from Stackage not Hackage when available: I guess I should
> update cabal-rpm to do that. And when registering new packages
> in release-monitoring.org, please use the Stackage backend
> instead of Hackage when your package is included in Stackage.
> Also particularly when updating packages
> please follow the package version in Stackage as far
> as possible not the latest version in Hackage.
> This should reduce the risk of revdep breakage when
> updating packages.
Have the existing watches been updated to use stackage?
Yes, they should all be updated. :)
Let me know if you notice any problems or abnormalities.
Anitya still puts the Hackage url into bugzilla which is probably confusing.
I should change that I think though stackage.org does not crosslink
to Hackage - something I would like it to do.
Jens