On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Magnus Therning <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 04:07:55PM +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: >> 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 is slightly more to it than just giving them different names, > you'd also have to make sure they don't have any file paths in common. > Also, if both packages provide docs then one should have precedence > over the other.
cabal supports installing multiple versions of the same packages so this should be pretty easy to do the same. > Also, a practical issue is that `cblrepo` isn't able to handle more > than a single version of each package in its database. Indeed. >>> 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. > > What would the purpose of providing two versions of some packages be? > Just to tick the has-haskell-platform box, or is there more value to > it? > What packages should be built using the -hp packages? If any, should > we try to do anything to avoid the diamond dependency problem? The purpose is wider than this. Having a second version of a package (P, V1, V2), might enable to build a whole set of packages which requires P>V1 while another set requires P≤V1. Again, as long as we can push the authors to upgrade their packages this is fine but we cannot assume this will always be the case. -- Nicolas Pouillard http://nicolaspouillard.fr _______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
