> and is there any point to having a collection without versions
in it? (If Cabal syntax is extended to support depending on collections
as well as packages, yes?)
So I think another use-case for collections, besides "version-locked",
is sets of "blessed" packages. So we might want a collection fo
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 13:52 +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> Syntax:
>
> Package collection names and versions exactly follow those of package
> names (but they live in a different namespace). For example,
> "stackage-lts-2.9", or "deprecated-343" (the latter being a "rolling"
> collection with a me
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 12:02 -0700, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
> Hello Duncan,
>
> In my eyes, this proposal looks like some sort of generalization of
> Stackage; and one further use case is "special purpose" collection. My
> big question: how composable are these collections really? I can't put
> two
Hello Duncan,
In my eyes, this proposal looks like some sort of generalization of
Stackage; and one further use case is "special purpose" collection. My
big question: how composable are these collections really? I can't put
two collections with conflicting versions together (or can I? Do I
union
Hi folks,
I'd like to get feedback on a spec/proposal for distributing package
collections via hackage. This is currently somewhere beyond vapourware
but certainly not a fait accompli and hopefully it is at an appropriate
point to get feedback.
The basic idea is that package collections are:
