On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:59:54 +0100, Rémy Oudompheng <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010/11/8 Magnus Therning <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 08/11/10 19:51, Xyne wrote: > >> Magnus Therning wrote: > >> > >>>> I suggest adding them to a group named "haskell-platform" too. > >>> > >>> With or without having a haskell-platform package? > >> > >> Packages and groups should never have the same name. If you think a package > >> by that name would make more sense then forget I mentioned using a group. > > > > I personally think a (meta-) package is better than a group. I've never > > really understood groups. That is, I understand perfectly how they > > work, but > > I don't understand the reason for having them. > > I see groups as a user-friendly manner of presenting, sorting, > installing packages, while meta-packages are friendlier to developers > and package managers (you can use a meta-package as dependency). I > don't think we are going to have depends=(haskell-platform) anywhere, > since all PKGBUILDs we have rely on the individual libraries.
If there is so little difference, then I'm for the meta-package solution. Best regards, -- Nicolas Pouillard http://nicolaspouillard.fr _______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
