[Haskell-cafe] Building "production stable" software in Haskell

[David Roundy]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 04:50:13PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 07:54:02AM -0700, David Roundy wrote:
> > 
> > cabal-install may help, but what I'd really want is packaging in debian.
> > That's my (biased, because I used debian) standard of a "maintained, useful
> > library."  It's obviously a biased standard, but it isn't too hard for a
> > package to get into debian, and if it *does* get into debian, it suggests
> > someone cares about it.  I don't like requiring obscure packages that
> > perhaps have no code review, and perhaps have no users other than the
> > author.
> 
> I'm hoping that at some point we will have something similar to
>     http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?introduction=yes
> where for questions like "how do I import graphics" and "what should I
> use to write a letter" particular packages are recommended, and reasons
> for choosing one over another are given. I've found this invaluable when
> doing LaTeX stuff.

FWIW, I use the same policy with LaTeX packages as I do with Haskell
libraries:  if it's not in debian, then I don't want to use it, unless I
want to hack on it (which isn't true of any LaTeX packages).  Of course, it
helps that almost any useful tex package is part of the tetex distribution,
but I think this is a reasonable model to follow.  I don't want to have to
update my LaTeX code due to packages that change their API due to an
upgrade, and I don't want to have to change my Haskell code due to a
pachages that changes API on upgrade.  I want good libraries, but more than
that, I want stable libraries, and it seems to me that the library
submission process for the "standard" haskell libraries reflects that.
-- 
David Roundy
Department of Physics
Oregon State University