| These packages are unmaintained: | | Win32 Volunteer needed | xhtml Volunteer needed | | I think it would be a good idea to change the .cabal file for them and | set the maintainer field to be either 'Unmaintained | <[email protected]>' or 'Volunteer Needed <[email protected]>'.
Yes I agree. | The xhtml library is also apparently still maintained as a darcs repo | with a git mirror... ect. Why don't we just have a single git repo as | the primary if we are now the ones maintaining it? That seems sensible to me. Why is xhtml a core library anyway? Does Haddock rely on it or something? | Also, the 'filepath' package's .cabal file says Neil Mitchell is the | maintainer but it seems GHC HQ is the maintainer. Should I change the | .cabal file here as well? It's not listed on http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions as a core library. Why do you think GHC HQ is the maintainer? Don't we just get it from Hackage and Neil? | Finally, many of the pure git repos (ones that aren't a mirror of a | darcs repo) still contain a .darcs-boring file. I assume this is just | left over trash so would like to remove. Is this OK? That sounds sensible. Everything I say is subject to what Ian/Simon say. Now that you raise the matter I realise that I have no clue what defines the "Core Libraries" of http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions. I thought perhaps they were simply the libraries that GHC depends on, but that's not true -- GHC depends on other libraries too http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Libraries, and we seem to call those the "Boot libraries". So what makes the core package core packages?! Simon _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
