Packages and modules

[Simon Marlow]

Malcolm Wallace wrote:

> But the biggest problem is really your phrase "(but only in one place)".
> I agree that specifying the dependencies close together is good in
> principle.  But occasionally, you need to have different package
> dependencies for different modules of a single project - this is a finer
> granularity of dependency than Cabal is currently good at expressing.

By all means have package names scattered through the source code, but 
the dependencies still need to be specified in a single place for each 
project.  The main reason is so that tools can grab the dependencies of 
a package without too much fuss: tools that turn Haskell packages into 
OS packages, for example.

Cheers,
	Simon