psc-package
psc-package copied to clipboard
purescript
separate lib from executable
addresses https://github.com/purescript/psc-package/issues/53
This is a work in progress, but the general direction should be reasonably clear at this point. Some notes for things that need to get done:
- [x] Move things out of
Main - [x] Adopt a Monad allowing library users to silence
echo. - [x] Documentation
@paf31 This is now ready for review. I'd never added anything to Hackage before, and thought it might require some changes... But it looks like it doesn't.
I'm going to get to this soon, but it's a pretty big PR so I have to find time. I don't understand your comment about Hackage though.
I don't understand your comment about Hackage though.
Oh, just that I initially thought that I would need to write some kind of script or metadata file to support uploading to Hackage, but that it appears as though that's unnecessary.
Should we close this PR? I haven't read through this PR's content and what it's trying to change. However, psc-package is generally no longer used by the community as most use spago now, though there may be some who still use it.
I'm up for archiving this repo. @justinwoo, what are your thoughts? IIRC, you were using this previously.
Ah, let me clarify. I don't think anyone is actually using this tool anymore, but I do remember that you used it in the past. I wasn't sure if you were still using it and thus if archiving this would impact your usage of the tool. So, I thought I would ask.
Thanks for clarifying, Justin.
It looks like there was some previous agreement about transferring this repo out of the purescript GitHub organization into the purescript-contrib organization (see https://github.com/purescript/psc-package/pull/156#issuecomment-541344932 and the following comment). However, that transfer never took place.
As a member of the purescript-contrib organiztion, I don't personally want to maintain this library. While I can't speak for the other members, I would guess that they don't want to either. So, continuing with the decision previously made to transfer this repo there doesn't sound good.
Assuming other purescript-contrib members don't want to maintain this, we can either archive this project or transfer it to someone else. @justinwoo, in https://github.com/purescript/psc-package/pull/156#issuecomment-539735595, it sounded like transferring this repo to you didn't seem appropriate to you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that's still your thought process.
Unless someone else wants to maintain this project (whether a core team member, a purescript-contrib member, or just anyone in the PureScript community as a whole), then the only option left is to archive this project.
If I don't hear comments from anyone else on the matter, I'll archive this project in two weeks (i.e. Oct 11).
i don't understand why you keep commenting in this PR thread, but okay.
does this project need anyone to maintain it other than me? does someone need to actively shuffle things around in this project? is there some need to have someone other than me to do anything in this project?
also consider that references to this project will break if you move it. you can archive this project, but if you delete it, you will end up breaking anything using those references.
what are you hoping will come out of this discussion?
please also understand that i no longer believe things i said in the comments in #156. i am not infallible and have realized i want to continue using psc-package, and use it regularly as a result.
i don't understand why you keep commenting in this PR thread, but okay.
I actually almost opened an issue to further discuss this :smile: I don't want to spam this PR's author with notifications, but it also felt like it might be weird to stop the conversation partway.
Let's just open a new issue for this discussion. I'll respond to your questions and comments there.