Haskell library infrastructure coordinator
28 May 2003 11:11:44 -0400
Peter Simons <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Sorry, my wording was probably misleading. I didn't mean any
> disrespect or opposition to Isaac Jones.
> 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
- 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
- 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
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