Quoting Magnus Therning (2013-06-30 00:19:02) > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:15:28PM +0200, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > Quoting Magnus Therning (2013-05-30 18:27:26) > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 01:15:50PM +0200, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > > > Quoting Ramana Kumar (2013-05-29 09:45:19) > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Magnus Therning > > > > > <mag...@therning.org>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you /do/ retire [habs-web] as there might be a > > > > > > number of commonly used packages in there that ought to be moved > > > > > > into > > > > > > [haskell-core]. I'm guessing you don't have any kind of usage > > > > > > statistics on the packages, do you? ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's best to consider habs-web retired as of now, since it > > > > > currently has no maintainer. > > > > > However, as far as moving packages goes, it would probably be fine to > > > > > wait > > > > > until someone explicitly asks for something that was in web to be made > > > > > available in core. > > > > > > > > I am/was also a user of habs-web for roughly two use-cases: > > > > * haskell programs such as git-annex or notmuch-web [0] that I want > > > > to build once and install multiple times. > > > > * my strategy to reduce compilation time was to install all binary > > > > haskell packages available and then use cabal install for the > > > > rest. > > > > > > > > I wolud like to also suggest that as long as storage permits we > > > > should keep the latest version of a working set of packages for each > > > > version of GHC. This does not cost much to just keep a copy before > > > > trying an upgrade and this would help users migrating. > > > > > > I don't think I understand what you mean by "we should keep the latest > > > version of a working set of packages for each version of GHC". Would > > > you mind describing in a few more words what that means? > > > > I mean to spawn off a frozen repo for at least the previous release > > of GHC. Repos could be named such as [haskell-core-7.6.2]. > > > > Is that reasonable? > > No, at least not if you are suggesting having several repos, with the > same set of pacakges, but compiled with different versions of GHC. > Maintaining that would require a bit more time than I have to offer, > and for me personally it's of no interest whatsoever to maintain a > repo for an old version of GHC.
The point was *not* to maintain it just keep it there for those who prefer not to upgrade now. _______________________________________________ arch-haskell mailing list arch-haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-haskell
