Proposal: splitting the network package

Joachim Breitner mail at
Wed Jan 9 14:24:20 CET 2013


Am Mittwoch, den 09.01.2013, 20:17 +0800 schrieb Conrad Parker:
> I think the only sensible way to use the "uri" package name would be
> to replace it (ie. remove Text.URI and add Network.URI).

sounds also fine. According to
this would break

      * github which, in violation of PVP has no upper bound on the uri
        version, and hence cannot complain about builds failing
      * hellnet, same
      * trajectory, same
      * isohunt, which is safe due to a <0.2 version constraint
      * an unknown quantify of private non-hackaged code

So it seems the impact of a non-compatible upload to uri would be low.

The question is more likely: Do maintainers have a strong ownership of
names they claim on hackage, or do we liberally take over names when it
is for the greater good? In Debian, such a name-take-over would be
highly controversial, but I’m not saying that this is a good thing.


Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
  mail at  |  nomeata at  |  GPG: 0x4743206C
  xmpp: nomeata at |

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list