Proposal: splitting the network package

Graham Klyne GK at
Thu Jan 17 10:25:13 CET 2013

On 09/01/2013 17:18, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> On 01/09/2013 01:24 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote:
>> 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.
> Personally i would be in favor of taking over a package name provided the
> following:
> * provided it's a platform thing.
> * it has wide support in the community
> * the package name is generic enough
> * the amount of breakage is minimal
> * the authors / maintainers have been contacted (if way to contact are still valid)
> Maybe the authors / maintainers of uri could be sympathetic to a renaming too.

As original author and one very sporadic maintainer of Network.URI, I'm 
sympathetic.  But see other message about compatibility issues.

(It occurs to me that if there's a way for a package to "inject" additional 
names into another/existing package, the breakage issues might be avoidable, but 
thjat probably opens a different can of works.)


More information about the Libraries mailing list