Contribution vs quality, and a few notes on the Platform process

[Stephen Tetley]

On 9 November 2010 19:41, Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li> wrote:

> Based on this, it sounds like rather than HOpenGL being in the platform,
> there should be HOpenGL binary installers for certain platforms. Perhaps
> cabal-install would automatically use these installers rather than
> building from source.
>
> Although IIRC, the arguments for including HOpenGL were that it is
> widely useful and its API is exemplary.
>

Apologies, I didn't mean HOpenGL wasn't "exemplary" in the sense of
very high quality (I certainly regard it highly and used it as the
model for the OpenVG binding). I was meaning that as a binding it
naturally follows conventions of the library it binds to and so should
be considered within that context.

I'd be concerned that dropping HOpenGL from the platform would result
in the Windows version getting out of the loop again, as it did when
GHC stopped bundling it.