On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 02:02:22PM +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> The point is, that flags like "old-base" or "bytestring-in-base" (as,
> for example, in [1]) are used solely to dispatch on the version of the
> base package. It should not be necessary for the user to invent flag
> names for such
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 11:40 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> Dependencies between packages are obviously more complex now that we
> have configurations.
>
> The web interface now has an experimental presentation of these
> dependencies transformed into disjunctive normal form, with the atoms
> being
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 12:48 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:17:43PM +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> > I presume the final interface should be to give the user a simple way to
> > query the dependenies by giving assignments for OS, arch,
> > implementation, etc. and then dy
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:17:43PM +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:
> I presume the final interface should be to give the user a simple way to
> query the dependenies by giving assignments for OS, arch,
> implementation, etc. and then dynamically (yes, using JavaScript)
> updating the dependency list
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 11:40 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> Dependencies between packages are obviously more complex now that we
> have configurations.
>
> The web interface now has an experimental presentation of these
> dependencies transformed into disjunctive normal form, with the atoms
> being
Dependencies between packages are obviously more complex now that we
have configurations.
The web interface now has an experimental presentation of these
dependencies transformed into disjunctive normal form, with the atoms
being simple version ranges. It lacks tests of os, arch and impl,
which w
