Simon Marlow wrote: > Ultimately when things settle down > it might make sense to do this kind of thing, but right now I think an > easier approach is to just fix packages when dependencies change, and to > identify sets of mutually-compatible packages (we've talked about doing > this on Hackage before). > > Cheers, > Simon
When coordinating distribution of separately maintained libraries and projects, the linux distributions do indeed "identify sets of mutually-compatible packages", quite often including small patchfiles to ensure compilation. Thus for linux, cabal is a layer below such apt and rpm repositories and blessing sets of packages would be done at a higher level. Once cabal is being used to automatically retrieve sets of working packages then it is easiest to write cabal to assume that hackage is fixed when dependencies change. As a practical matter, it is easy to see how to identify such sets. Since such sets must be installed by at least one person, that person's ghc-pkg listing is already a precise definition of the working set. All that might need to be done is to publish such a working set on hackage where cabal (or another tool) can see it. Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe