#94: installations errors
-+--
Reporter: porkedrons[at]gmail.com |Owner: duncan
Type: defect | Status: closed
Priority: critical |Milestone:
Comp
#92: Installer doesn't build MTL but then tries to install it
---+
Reporter: ilmari.vack...@cs.helsinki.fi |Owner: duncan
Type: defect | Status: closed
Priority: major
> So far we have had a few people send in comments (thanks particularly to
> Ian and Simon) but a few more would not go amiss, even if it's just
> "yes".
Yes.
> Concern 1: "The policy document itself is too long and too detailed."
>
> Quick poll: should we split the rationale into a separate page
All,
About a month ago we came up with a recommendation for a procedure for
adding new packages to the Haskell Platform.
Initial announcement:
http://haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2009-August/012397.html
Proposed policy:
http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/AddingPackages
If you like
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 13:02 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Specific comments:
>
> "come to view on whether the package should be accepted"
> -> "help achieve a consensus ... "
We decided to clarify it slightly differently to make clear the
distinction between forming a view and working with others
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 13:02 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > The main document contains:
> >* the procedure itself, which is relatively short
> >* a rationale, cross-linked to the procedure
> >* a procedure to help us make decisions
> >
> > http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-pla
