Thinking on it more - surely there is enough information from the failed compilations to suggest changes to the cabal files? Feed them back to the developers?
My thoughts go this way - people like creating, that's why hackage is beginning to grow. They don't tend to like the packaging issues - they are seen as a distraction the more we can automate this the better, the more quickly the libraries are going to get up to date. As a community we are building a momentum here - let's not derail it by a lack of attention to detail. Neil On 09/09/2007, Neil Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah, > > this begins to answer my question: there isn't really a plan.... > > I would have thought that he first step is to be able to distinguish > which of the hackage packages "compile" under 6.8 - some annotation to > the hackage DB? Secondly, is there a dependency graph of the stuff on > hackage anywhere? That would identify which order to change packages > in (for example the cabal-install package is dependent on exactly one > version of the HTTP library). We need to size the problem. > > Nei > > > > On 09/09/2007, Duncan Coutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 14:50 +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote: > > > Hi Neil, > > > > > > > Given that GHC 6.8 is just around the corner and, given how it has > > > > re-organised the libraries so that the dependencies in many (most/all) > > > > the packages in the hackage DB are now not correct. > > > > > > > > Is there a plan of how to get hackage DB up to speed with GHC 6.8 ? > > > > > > I think whatever we go with will be deeply painful. Especially given > > > the switch to Cabal configurations comes at the same time, rather than > > > before. > > > > Cabal 1.2 is out now and supports configurations and current ghc: > > > > http://haskell.org/cabal/download.html > > > > Duncan > > > > > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe