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

Jens Petersen petersen at
Tue Nov 23 07:00:17 EST 2010

[Me late to the party as usual...]

On 9 November 2010 21:50, Ross Paterson <ross at> wrote:
> Let's do both:
> - a set of packages under community control that we're trying to make
>  consistent.
> - a set of package versions that are popular, meet objective standards
>  and have been tested to build together.
> But let's not try to force these to be the same.

I agree with Ross: and have been thinking the same lately
that it would be really nice to have a midway between the strictness
of HP and the fast flowing package stream of hackage.

It would great to have a consistent large set of source packages
brought together into one stable package repo - it would be big with
100s of packages but only one version of a package would be allowed
and built on top of current HP which should be the base of course.
Probably the main barrier to entry/updates would be not breaking
or conflicting with any other package.

Anyone interested in this?  I think Linux distros and Haskell
development would benefit greatly from such a large consistent
collection of libraries, which could be updated in continuous
rolling mode during the life-time of each HP release.  There
could also later be different streams (stable, testing, unstable, etc).


More information about the Libraries mailing list