Erik de Castro Lopo <mle...@mega-nerd.com> writes: > Finally, if a package is deprecated it might be usefult to have > a reason as well so the hackage entry might say: > > Deprecated : true (replaced by package XXX) > > or > > Deprecated : true (needs maintainer)
Or just Deprecated: (reason)?. Couldn't the presence of a Deprecated field be sufficient - the "true" seems gratuitious to me. One could also have something like Superseeds and Superseeded-by, of course, if that turns out to be the usual reasons for deprecation. And in a later post: > Well there is at least one package (network-dns) where the maintainter > doesn't want to maintain it any more but would be happy for someone > else to take it over. > It would be nice if something like this could be represented in the > package metadata. Absence of a "Maintainer" field? One problem is that the last uploaded package is likely to have an active maintainer, and when the maintainer disappears, he or she is unlikely to do a last update changing the status. Perhaps we could have automated emails to maintainers twice a year or so? -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
