Hey, On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:07:43PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi, Am Dienstag, den 06.10.2009, 08:27 +1100 schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:I think so. From memory, we couldn't come up with a better solution.allright, so I did. Please everyone interested have a look at http://darcs.debian.org/pkg-haskell/haskell-platform/ and tell me if it’s ok. We’ll then upload it soon then. (One might argue that we should put at least >= version constraints in the dependencies, to avoid having the platform migrate earlier that the package version it was designed for. Not sure if we need it though) Greetings, Joachim
It's really great that we've managed to come this far so quickly. I've spoken to a few people and Debian (and Ubuntu by extension) did have a reputation for having an antiquated Haskell stack. Well done to all involved - this common impression will dissipate very soon, or as far as it can given our release models.
With regards to the platform, I can't help but feel that we are lacking in some way. One feature that upstream pushes is that by installing the platform you know which versions of the libraries and tools you are getting. We seem to be going for more of a best-effort solution.
I don't think we have release goals as a team yet, but if we were to, I would propose that one of them be Haskell platform compliance.With this in mind, I wonder if it would be an idea for us to have both minimum and maximum dependencies, so that we only have a compliant platform in testing at any one time, which all migrates in one shot (the 'trigger' being pulled would be a new haskell-platform upload). Of course problems come when applications force us to deviate, as happened with Darcs and -zlib recently.
This is only my initial thoughts. I won't argue too strongly for this or try to block progress. In particular, I think that the draft package looks fine to be uploaded now - we can address such issues in a future revision. Testing migration is still a little while off anyway.
Description: Digital signature