On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 12:17 -0800, Don Stewart wrote: > andrewcoppin: > > > Hackage seems like a nice idea in principle. However, > > I think in practice too: we had no central lib archive or dependency > system, now we have 400 libraries, and a package installer, 10 months > later. Until Hackage, there was a strong pressure not to reuse other > people's libraries. > > > - The packages seem to be of quite variable quality. Some are excellent, > > some are rather poor (or just not maintained any more). > > 1. Welcome to the internet.
Sure, but this doesn't mean we couldn't implement some mechanisms to improve the situation. Some things I could think of: - Have Hackage display a information of whether a package builds on a particular platform. Information could be provided by cabal-install (if the user agrees, of course.) - Allow uploaded packages receive minor patches, i.e., fixing .cabal file. This will probably be a recurring problem, since packages will be updated and base will be split up further. - I don't know if a commenting system on hackage would be more useful than on a package's homepage. At least it would be useful to have a package homepage and bug-tracker for each package. Both could simply be a code.google.com site. Alltogether, I'm quite happy with Hackage. There's room for improvement, sure, but I think we're on the right track ... _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
