On Thursday 22 July 2010 18:23:32, Stephen Tetley wrote: > On 22 July 2010 16:56, Thomas DuBuisson <thomas.dubuis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The hackage build logs can be misleading - many system specific > > packages may or may not build on hackage because it just isn't the > > right OS. Still other packages require particular C libraries that > > the hackage server doesn't have. For these reasons the build reports > > will come from end developer systems (see linked blog). > > Presumably you can only get false negatives - i.e. "correct" packages > failing to build due to missing C libraries, or depending on Haskell > libraries at different version numbers to the build server? > > >>> Isak Hansen: > >>> > >>> How about taking it one step further, actually "hiding" unmaintained > >>> packages after a grace period? > > Hiding unmaintained libraries seems contrary to Hackage's spirit - if > you want to depend on an unmaintained library why not volunteer to be > the maintainer.
I think it was more meant to be fails to build and not updated for (>= k months) ==> move to packages/notshiny If it doesn't build and nobody seems to care about it anymore, why let it clutter the pkg-list, that's crowded enough even without zombies. Of course, new release that builds ==> back to pkg-list _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
