GHC and Haskell 98
zao at acc.umu.se
Mon Jun 20 12:15:43 CEST 2011
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:54:30AM +0100, John Lato wrote:
> > From: Bas van Dijk <v.dijk.bas at gmail.com>
> > On 17 June 2011 16:47, Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > So: ? ?Under Plan A, some Hackage packages will become un-compilable,
> > > ? ? ? and will require source code changes to fix them. ?I do not have
> > > ? ? ? ?any idea how many Hackage packages would fail in this way.
> > Of the 372 direct reverse dependencies of haskell98:
> > http://bifunctor.homelinux.net/~roel/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/revdeps/haskell98-188.8.131.52#direct
> > there are 344 which also depend on base (See http://hpaste.org/47933
> > for calculating the intersection).
> Is it easy to check, out of those 344, how many would build if the
> dependency on haskell98 were removed? I suspect it's not needed for the
> majority of cases.
> +1 for Plan A, but interested in mitigating the negative consequences.
> (Bas, your link doesn't work for me BTW, can't resolve the IP. May be my
> uni's dns cache.)
> John Lato
This thread seems to focus way too much on Hackage alone.
What about all the existing codebases out there, in production?
Lars Viklund | zao at acc.umu.se
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users