On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Peter Hercek <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/03/2012 10:18 AM, Magnus Therning wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:12, Nicolas Pouillard >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Indeed but I support the concept of the haskell-platform. It is too >>> >>> restrictive to only packages able to track the latest versions of >>> their dependencies. >>> >>> I suggest we try this technique on one case first and the text package >>> seems to be a good example. We could package the latest version of >>> text and upgrade some package which depend on it. >> >> I'm sorry, but what "technique" are you referring to here?
Supporting multiple versions of a package by giving them different archlinux names. > There was a proposal (in the far past) to add "-hp" to the name of all > packages which belong to haskell platform (HP). The different name would > allow to have a HP package version and one more package version which was > supposed to be the very latest stable version. > HP packages could depend only on other HP packages. Non-HP packages could > depend on HP packages and also on non-HP packages. > Not sure whether there is some fundamental problem why this cannot work or > it was only forgotten. Looks to me like it could work. Indeed this is a solution. However it requires having control on all hp packages which we don't have. However either options are OK for me. -- Nicolas Pouillard http://nicolaspouillard.fr _______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
