Hi. Excerpts from Iain Lane's message of Sex Mai 27 06:52:48 -0300 2011: (...) > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 06:39:59PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 16:54 +0100 schrieb Iain Lane: > >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:14:09PM -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote: > >> >Hi. > >> > > >> >Excerpts from Debian FTP Masters's message of Qui Mai 26 11:17:08 -0300 2011: > >> >(...) > >> >> haskell98-report_20080907-2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to ftp-master.debian.org > >> > > >> >Does it still makes sense to keep this package in Debian? If we are planning > >> >to keep one haskell report, maybe it should be 2010. In this case, I propose > >> >we changed the package name to haskell-report, to avoid problems on the > >> >future. > >> > >> Do we know what GHC is planning on doing? On [0] you can see the > >> statement: > >> > >> As with all known Haskell systems, GHC implements some extensions to > >> the language. They are all enabled by options; by default GHC > >> understands only plain Haskell 98. > >> > >> So if Haskell 98 is still relevant then we should keep it and package > >> 2010 separately. > >> > >> If not, then I agree we should do as you propose. > > > >Maybe the 2010 report is clear on what has changed since 98 (after all, > >there is not much difference), then there’d be a one-stop source. > > > >If we want to keep both, then, to avoid confusion, I’d still prefer one > >haskell-report package that ships both documents, preferably with a > >short introductory index page. > > I don't think it's confusing, especially since the package is called > haskell*98*-report, installs into /usr/share/doc/haskell*98*-report, and > promenantly displays a "Haskell 98" logo. 2010 would be similar > (although no logo). Users can be trusted to know what they want, and we > can help them in this regard by making the package descriptions useful. > > The 2010 report mentions[0] "[t]he most significant language changes in > Haskell 2010 relative to Haskell 98", but I can't see an exhaustive > list. > > A meta package which installs both and gives a nice index page would be > a good idea though. Yes, maybe it's not confusing, but I still prefer the idea of having only one package for reports, since the user is probably interested in both, and I don't see the need to create two packages only for haskell reports. Greetings. (...) -- marcot http://marcot.eti.br/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature