[arch-haskell] Upgrading to monad-control-0.3

Nicolas Pouillard nicolas.pouillard at gmail.com
Sat Oct 12 07:39:51 UTC 2013

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Peter Hercek <phercek at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/03/2012 10:18 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:12, Nicolas Pouillard
>> <nicolas.pouillard at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Indeed but I support the concept of the haskell-platform. It is too
>>> restrictive to only packages able to track the latest versions of
>>> their dependencies.
>>> I suggest we try this technique on one case first and the text package
>>> seems to be a good example. We could package the latest version of
>>> text and upgrade some package which depend on it.
>> I'm sorry, but what "technique" are you referring to here?

Supporting multiple versions of a package by giving them different
archlinux names.

> There was a proposal (in the far past) to add "-hp" to the name of all
> packages which belong to haskell platform (HP). The different name would
> allow to have a HP package version and one more package version which was
> supposed to be the very latest stable version.
> HP packages could depend only on other HP packages. Non-HP packages could
> depend on HP packages and also on non-HP packages.
> Not sure whether there is some fundamental problem why this cannot work or
> it was only forgotten. Looks to me like it could work.

Indeed this is a solution. However it requires having control on all
hp packages which
we don't have. However either options are OK for me.

Nicolas Pouillard

More information about the arch-haskell mailing list