GHC and Haskell 98

[Lars Viklund]

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/haskell98-1.1.0.1#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