Proposal: Changes to the PVP

[Johan Tibell]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh at earth.li>wrote:
>
>> On 10/04/2014 05:30, Michael Snoyman wrote:> I think it's obvious that no
>> amendment to the text of the PVP will be
>>  > accepted by this list, so educating users that they're using their
>> tools
>> > incorrectly clearly won't be happening on that page.
>>
>> Didn't Johan get an amendment agreed a few weeks ago? I think your
>> current amendments will have difficulty because they are based on
>> premises that many people disagree with, but that doesn't mean that no
>> amendments at all are possible.
>>
>> I should have clarified: no amendment that points out flaws in the PVP.
> My premise is simple: the PVP is a useful tool, but does not address all
> cases. Since people seem to mistakenly believe that it will protect them
> from all build problems, the text should be amended to make that clear.
> Every attempt I've made to come up with text that is acceptable to this
> list has been met with resistance. If someone else can come up with a
> modification that is acceptable, great. But I'm not going to continue
> trying, and will instead try to inform people through other channels that
> they need to use something more than the PVP if they want reproducible
> builds.
>

There are already text describing flaws in the PVP (e.g. the aforementioned
instance leak and issues with adding new modules). We should add something
about module exports.

What the PVP page doesn't address, and I don't think it should address, are
orthogonal issues i.e. issues related to reproducible builds*.

* Here using the meaning: building using exactly the same bits.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140410/c109a509/attachment.html>