Haskell library infrastructure coordinator

[Isaac Jones]

Peter Simons <simons@cryp.to> writes:

> Sorry, my wording was probably misleading. I didn't mean any
> disrespect or opposition to Isaac Jones. 
> (snip)

None taken!

> Ketil Z. Malde writes:
> 
>  > It seems to me that binary packages should be mostly optional, and
>  > can be deferred to the compiler developers to snarf from the
>  > "hslibs" (stable) hierarchy and include at their leisure?

Binary packages can also be provided by distribution maintainers (like
a Debian maintainer).

I read over Peter's proposal, and I consider it more of a distribution
proposal than a library infrastructure proposal.  So far I have been
thinking of distribution infrastructures as the last step in the
process, there are some immediate issues that I see however, and none
of these are showstoppers.

- On the good side, there are probably a lot of orphaned libraries
that need a home.  haskell-libs would be a good place for storing them
and helping them to percolate into a repository of more useful
libraries.

- Despite being an open CVS tree, the approach is rather "cathedral".  I
have been thinking that we want a standard way for individuals to
distribute libraries and tools, and then to create a central
repository of those once the library authors conform to a particular
interface.

- Some authors won't want to store a copy of their code on another CVS
repository if their projects already have a home.  This could cause
redundancy and / or forking.

I'd be interested to see how your proposal fits with mine in your
eyes.

As I mentioned, this discussion illustrates the need for us to come up
with a set of requirements.  I think that you and I see similar
solutions, but they are somewhat upside-down from one another.

Also, you mentioned hbuild, can you discuss how this improves upon
hmake?



peace,

isaac