agreeing a policy for maintainers and hackageDB

Isaac Dupree isaacdupree at
Tue Jun 24 09:42:48 EDT 2008

Neil Mitchell wrote:
> Hi
>>  > 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 (but is somewhere 
else on the web, where you know the URL)?


More information about the Libraries mailing list