A brief stylistic note: to me, defunct has a connotation similar to that of deprecated, just stronger; meaning, it implies something closer to "NoLongerOnHackage" rather than wren's more general "NotOnHackage." In this case, the distinction is moot, because the code did happen to exist on Hackage, but I imagine there are cases one might want to warn against without this condition being true.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, David Thomas <davidleotho...@gmail.com>wrote: > I think it needs to be both places. I know when I'm searching, I often > just go to google with "site:hackage.haskell.org inurl:latest" I would > be likely to miss it if it were just in the cabal file (although in the > modules it could be as simple as a note saying "this is defunct - view the > main page for an explanation of why). Alternatively, if there is much > reasoning specific to a particular module it could certainly go there, > while the cabal gets the overview... > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, wren ng thornton <w...@freegeek.org>wrote: > >> On 1/24/13 1:40 AM, Ertugrul Söylemez wrote: >> >>> David Thomas <davidleotho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> We could even set up NotOnHackage: a "package" repository just like >>>>> Hackage, except the packages are just documentation on why there is >>>>> no such package. Implementation-wise it's just a wiki; but the idea >>>>> is about how to organize the wiki. NotOnHackage should be organized >>>>> and searchable similar to Hackage itself, so that people can look >>>>> there when nothing looks promising on Hackage. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Couldn't this be actually on hackage, so one search turns up what you >>>> want? >>>> >>> >>> Yes. There is no reason to put up a second Hackage for that one. >>> Without changing anything in the current system, packages can just >>> update their categories, so that they will be displayed below "Defunct" >>> or something like that. This is fine, as only the categories of the >>> latest version are significant. >>> >>> If you think this is a good idea, I will start with some of my >>> packages. =) >>> >> >> We've had package deprecation for a while, so the big trick IMO is the >> documentation. Good descriptions of why the package is defunct and >> suggestions on how people can do things better. >> >> If we're going to do it on Hackage itself, I think the big question is >> one of style: should the documentation be all in the cabal file (i.e., on >> the package description page, with no modules in the package); or should we >> put the documentation into modules? >> >> >> -- >> Live well, >> ~wren >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe