Taking binary from hackage or GHC?

[Joachim Breitner]

Dear interested parties :-),

GHC 7.4.1 started to ship and expose the binary library, version
0.5.0.3. On hackage is binary-0.5.1.0. In Debian, we try to provide one
version of each library, so we have to decide:

 * Use the version provided by GHC and drop the independent binary
package (as we have done with random, for example).

 * Do not expose binary in GHC and continue using the version from
hackage.

@Upstream: Do you think binary on hackage will diverge much from the one
in GHC and would you expect your users to want the new versions before
they are shipped with GHC? And do you expect breakage in any components
(e.g. haddock) if everything but GHC uses a newer binary package?

Greetings,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata at debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata at joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20120208/9b4897b4/attachment.pgp>