agreeing a policy for maintainers and hackageDB
isaacdupree at charter.net
Tue Jun 24 09:42:48 EDT 2008
Neil Mitchell wrote:
>> > I would change the final sentance to: "Then put your own name in the
>> > Maintainer field, to indicate your ongoing support for the package."
>> > People will figure out that if they want to fork and abandon then they
>> > can blank the maintainer field, but by default a fork should come with
>> > support. We don't want to enourage one-shot packages with no support!
>> I'd prefer not to leave anything implicit. If we're going to permit
>> unsupported forks, we ought to say what they should look like. (They are,
>> after all, happening now.)
> Do we want to permit unsupported forks? I am not convinced they are a good idea.
what do we do if a package becomes unsupported? delete it? Or are you
just concerned about it if they're *forks* that no one ever intended to
support (rather than a maintainer of a package leaving after a while)?
anyway, here's the conflict between hackage as a repository of anything
Haskell that someone might use/start maintaining, or hackage as a
collection of stuff that's generally supposed to work "out-of-the-box"
to some extent(cabal-install). Does cabal-install make it easy to
install something that's not in hackage.haskell.org (but is somewhere
else on the web, where you know the URL)?
More information about the Libraries