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

Magnus Therning magnus at therning.org
Sat Oct 12 07:39:51 UTC 2013

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 04:07:55PM +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> 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 is slightly more to it than just giving them different names,
you'd also have to make sure they don't have any file paths in common.
Also, if both packages provide docs then one should have precedence
over the other.

Also, a practical issue is that `cblrepo` isn't able to handle more
than a single version of each package in its database.

>> 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.

What would the purpose of providing two versions of some packages be?
Just to tick the has-haskell-platform box, or is there more value to
What packages should be built using the -hp packages?  If any, should
we try to do anything to avoid the diamond dependency problem?


Magnus Therning                      OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 
email: magnus at therning.org   jabber: magnus at therning.org
twitter: magthe               http://therning.org/magnus

Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid with
millions of bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural
integrity, but just done by brute force and thousands of slaves.
     -- Alan Kay
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/arch-haskell/attachments/20131012/72315b55/attachment.sig>

More information about the arch-haskell mailing list