On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:48 AM, He-chien Tsai <depot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sick for checking whether package is obsolete or not. > I think packages build failed long time ago should be collected and moved > to another page until someone fix them, or hackage pages should have a > filter for checking obsolete packages. > I don't believe hackage can (currently) do this with a sufficient level of precision. *Many* packages fail to build on hackage because they depend on c-libraries that need to be installed externally from cabal. There are some mitigations for this in the works (although, it's been that way for some time now...). Hackage 2 should have some community-involvement features (such as ratings, tags, etc..) that can enable better rankings of packages, and there is a hackage reverse-dependencies database that can also be used as a rough indicator of stability. That said, I do firmly believe that we should have multiple instances of hackage at various levels of stability (and at corresponding levels of scrutiny). At the moment, we have the Haskell Platform on one end of this continuum of stability, and hackage at the other. It would be useful to have something in the middle. --Rogan > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
