[Haskell-cafe] Re: [Haskell] Re: Trying to install binary-0.4

[Simon Marlow]

Claus Reinke wrote:
 > Simon Marlow wrote:
 >> Another reason not to change the name of 'base' is that there would be
 >> a significant cost to doing so: the name is everywhere, not just in
 >> the source code of GHC and its tools, but wiki pages, documentation,
 >> and so on.
 >
 > but the name that is everywhere does not stand for what the new version
 > provides! any place that is currently referring to 'base' will have to be
 > inspected to check whether it will or will not work with the reduced
 > base package. and any place that is known to work with the new
 > base package might as well make that clear, by using a different name.

base changed its API between 2.0 and 3.0, that's all.  The only difference 
between what happened to the base package between 2.0 and 3.0 and other 
packages is the size of the changes.  In fact, base 3.0 provides about 80% 
the same API as version 2.0.

Exactly what percentage change should in your opinion require changing the 
name of the package rather than just changing its version number?  Neither 
0% nor 100% are good choices... packaging is rarely clear-cut!

Cheers,
	Simon