On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:54:30AM +0100, John Lato wrote: > > > > From: Bas van Dijk <v.dijk....@gmail.com> > > > > On 17 June 2011 16:47, Simon Peyton-Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > So: ? ?Under Plan A, some Hackage packages will become un-compilable, > > > ? ? ? and will require source code changes to fix them. ?I do not have > > > ? ? ? ?any idea how many Hackage packages would fail in this way. > > > > Of the 372 direct reverse dependencies of haskell98: > > > > > > http://bifunctor.homelinux.net/~roel/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/revdeps/haskell98-1.1.0.1#direct > > > > there are 344 which also depend on base (See http://hpaste.org/47933 > > for calculating the intersection). > > > > Is it easy to check, out of those 344, how many would build if the > dependency on haskell98 were removed? I suspect it's not needed for the > majority of cases. > > +1 for Plan A, but interested in mitigating the negative consequences. > > (Bas, your link doesn't work for me BTW, can't resolve the IP. May be my > uni's dns cache.) > > John Lato
This thread seems to focus way too much on Hackage alone. What about all the existing codebases out there, in production? -- Lars Viklund | z...@acc.umu.se _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
