Bug in Parsec.Token
aslatter at gmail.com
Fri Apr 2 00:34:27 EDT 2010
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Isaac Dupree
<ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:
> On 04/01/10 23:39, Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
>> It sounds to me like forking Parsec 3 would cause quite a bit of pain
>> for other packages on Hackage, but forking Parsec 2.1 to Parsec98
>> would be relatively painless.
> I like the idea of parsec98... But wouldn't then, the .cabal file of *every*
> package that wished to depend on the Platform and its parsec, (a.k.a.
> parsec98), have to be changed?
We've already had situations where distros are in a tight spot because
they only want to ship one version of the parsec package, but they
want to ship packages that list a parsec < 3 dep and packages which
lists a parsec >= 3 dep.
But yes, to be strictly HP compliant a package would need to update
its package description.
I don't think that HP compliance is a goal that any package should aim
for - if a library or executable is popular it will get packaged in
the distros. The exception is libs that want to ship in the platform,
and those are small enough in number they can be handled on a case by
More information about the Libraries