Hi Anthony, > I know you didn't ask for feedback [...].
I'm always happy to get feedback! > If the top priority is receiving bug fixes, then keeping an LTS-4, > LTS-5, LTS-6, etc. that tracks the most recent minor version makes > sense. You seem to be saying that keeping an old major release like LTS-4 around would somehow help us receive more bug fixes, but I can't see how that would be true. According to git://github.com/fpco/lts-haskell.git, the last time any LTS-4 update occurred was on 2016-01-18 -- almost half a year ago. Surely, there have been point updates that fix bugs between then and now, but LTS-4 does not seem to receive them, no? That is because no-one maintains LTS-4. Stackage has moved on to LTS-5, or rather: LTS-6 by now. So how exactly do we receive more bug fixes by distributing LTS-4? > You say, "Stackage does not "maintain" any of its LTS releases," but > the minor releases are precisely the offered maintenance. The thing is just that minor releases occur only for the latest major release. LTS-6 has minor release at the moment, but LTS-5, LTS-4, etc. do not! I agree that it would make sense to continue to distribute LTS-4 if there were further minor releases to come out for that package set. But there won't be any. As far as Stackage is concerned, LTS-4 is dead. > Furthermore, there is no reason a new LTS-5 release can not be issued > after the first release of LTS-6. Sure, this *could* happen and it would be great! Then we'd have a real long-term supported package set that would be worth-while to distribute. > The cultural prominence of Stackage means that the need for security > fixes to older versions can actually be promulgated because Stackage > has users. I am sorry, but I have no idea what that sentence means. > For a modest application, specifying a particular Stackage release is > a concise way of freezing Haskell dependencies. In Nix, we can solve these things by tagging a specific version of Nixpkgs and sticking to that. Not only will that freeze the Haskell dependencies, but it will also freeze all other dependencies, too. > A typical Stackage definition is about 70KB. Huh? That's not what I am seeing in git://github.com/fpco/lts-haskell.git: $ ls -lh lts-6.2.yaml -rw-r--r-- 1 simons users 4.7M Jun 6 11:58 lts-6.2.yaml > Nix definitions require nearly 10x that space is unfortunate, but I > had expected a Nix solution to this issue rather than giving up on > versions altogether. Oh, come on. I wrote a very long and detailed explanation of *why* we give up on tracking Hackage, and to boil that whole article down to "it was using too much disk space" is just silly. Best regards, Peter _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
