Thinking about what's missing in our library coverage
duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Mon Aug 10 08:45:22 EDT 2009
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 09:18 +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote:
> > I see two possibilities:
> > * Allow LGPL (+linking exception) in the HP and include cpphs. Then
> > haskell-src-exts can replace haskell-src immediately.
> I support this.
> > * I remove the rather small functionality in haskell-src-exts that
> > depends on cpphs (namely deliterating literate source files). Then a
> > slightly stumped haskell-src-exts could replace haskell-src after I
> > release such a stumped version.
> I seriously dislike the idea that packages must have useful features
> removed to end in the HP. I also want you to include CPP support in
> HSE, and removing cpphs makes this more unlikely.
It's clear that the licensing issue is going to be controversial and
will take some time. I'm not sure it is sensible to try and work it out
before the next major release, given that the higher priority has to be
agreeing the procedure for adding packages. If we do not get around to
agreeing the licensing issue then the default position has to be no new
licenses 'til we do work it out properly.
As a personal opinion, I'd certainly like to see cpphs in the platform
and to have Cabal use it in preference to gcc -E / cpp.
More information about the Libraries