[Haskell-cafe] RFC: removing “alternative installation methods” from haskell.org (or finding them owners)

[Tom Ellis]

Well, I'm sorry if I have made them unhappy.  When I said "unverified"
I was talking about the information, not the packaging.  Perhaps I
should have been more careful in my choice of words.

Yet, their work has not been (recently) confirmed working by those
responsible for maintaining www.haskell.org, nor do we have the
resources to perform such confirmations.  If someone is willing to
put in the long term work needed to keep the information continually
up to date then we will welcome continued inclusion of that
information on the website.

Tom


On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 02:39:47PM -0400, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> I have to imagine various distributions' maintainers would be unhappy
> to find their packaging referred to as "unverified". (Aside from
> Arch's, who apparently just don't care how much of a painful mess they
> make for their users.)
> 
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 2:36 PM Tom Ellis
> <tom-lists-haskell-cafe-2017 at jaguarpaw.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 08:23:58PM +0200, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> > > I did read the OP. My point was simply that it might be acceptable to
> > > have half-working (or whatever) instructions if they were squirreled
> > > away behind a link + disclaimer. That might be better for people who
> > > (for whatever reason) don't want either of the officially supported methods.
> >
> > My personal point of view is that it is counterproductive to have
> > unverified, unmaintained information on the website anywhere, even
> > squirreled away.  But thank you for this suggestion.  We will take it
> > into consideration and enact it if there is sufficient support.