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

John Lato jwlato at
Tue Nov 23 14:11:51 EST 2010

> From: Jens Petersen <petersen at>
> [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).

I agree this would be useful, particularly if it would help distro
packagers.  I'd be willing to contribute to such an effort.

John Lato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Libraries mailing list