Re: haskell-debian vs. newest HaXml
On 11 Sep 2009, at 14:11, John Goerzen wrote:
But the point is: we're here to make life easy for users, so
let's give them the HaXml 1.13 through squeeze and zap it after that.
I may be a bit late to the discussion, but I'm wondering if anything
we have in Debian requires the new HaXml? This should IMO be our
concern; as library maintainers we have a responsibility for our
rdepends and should endeavour to minimise the number of breaking
changes that we do. If a new, API incompatible, release of a library
comes out then we need to work out a transition plan with the rdepends
if we want to include it in Debian. Essentially I think that we
primarily have libraries included as a service to applications and
other libraries which depend on them and this should be the main
concern we have as maintainers. I do realise that the Haskell
situation is a lot different to (say) C; that we have a lot of end
users who write programs using the packaged libraries and so may
include them in Debian without a specific application consumer. But in
the cases where there are consumers, we should be careful what we do.
So I would recommend that we roll back until the new series is
declared stable and rdepends start migrating to the new API. I also
hope that upstream can make this situation more manifest on their
hackage page - having `cabal install haxml' install an unstable
version is surely an undesirable situation.
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.