On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 04:50:13PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 07:54:02AM -0700, David Roundy wrote: > > > > cabal-install may help, but what I'd really want is packaging in debian. > > That's my (biased, because I used debian) standard of a "maintained, useful > > library." It's obviously a biased standard, but it isn't too hard for a > > package to get into debian, and if it *does* get into debian, it suggests > > someone cares about it. I don't like requiring obscure packages that > > perhaps have no code review, and perhaps have no users other than the > > author. > > I'm hoping that at some point we will have something similar to > http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?introduction=yes > where for questions like "how do I import graphics" and "what should I > use to write a letter" particular packages are recommended, and reasons > for choosing one over another are given. I've found this invaluable when > doing LaTeX stuff.
FWIW, I use the same policy with LaTeX packages as I do with Haskell libraries: if it's not in debian, then I don't want to use it, unless I want to hack on it (which isn't true of any LaTeX packages). Of course, it helps that almost any useful tex package is part of the tetex distribution, but I think this is a reasonable model to follow. I don't want to have to update my LaTeX code due to packages that change their API due to an upgrade, and I don't want to have to change my Haskell code due to a pachages that changes API on upgrade. I want good libraries, but more than that, I want stable libraries, and it seems to me that the library submission process for the "standard" haskell libraries reflects that. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe