Splitting Network.URI from the network package

[Johan Tibell]

The network master branch now has the changes I intend for network-2.6
(plus some internal clean-up).


On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> I will do the required changes (split, add docs, etc) and put the new
> package under https://github.com/haskell/network-uri (for now).
>
> It would be great to have a new maintainer, under the condition that the
> new maintainer recognizes that
>
>  * Network.URI has been around for a long time and lots of users depend on
> it, so please don't break backwards compatibility without some serious
> thought and
>  * the package is a part of the HP (by virtue of network being apart and
> we don't want to remove a module without due process), so the maintainer
> will need to adhere to the HP rules (e.g. don't add new deps that are not
> part of the HP).
>
> I will try to do the split in the next few days, but I have visitors so it
> might take a bit longer.
>
> -- Johan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>  *Options 2: Users of Network.URI depend on both network and a
>>>>>> specially crafted network-uri*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>  Cons:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    - network-uri has a false dependency on network (i.e. it doesn't
>>>>>>    actually need that package).
>>>>>>    - You can't build against a new version of text *and* use the
>>>>>>       network-uri package (this is the current problem we have with network in
>>>>>>       the problem description).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Can you clarify this point? I would imagine that network will no
>>>>> longer have *any* dependency on text, so I don't see where this comes from.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My apologies. Let me clarify. If the user doesn't already have a
>>>> version of network installed (e.g. via the HP), then building network is
>>>> required to build network-uri. This probably isn't a problem on Windows, if
>>>> we assume users already have an appropriate version of network through the
>>>> HP. It might be an inconvenience (e.g. longer build times) for users who
>>>> don't use the HP but still want to build network-uri (e.g for the
>>>> maintainer of network-uri :) ).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarifications Duncan and Johan. Yes, we should add a con
>>> to the option 2 that usage of network-uri will require network to be
>>> available. I'd consider this a relatively low-impact con, since I highly
>>> doubt there are many people out there who will want to use Network.URI but
>>> not also want to use network- at least transitively.
>>>
>>> Even after the arguments from Duncan and Johan, I still would prefer
>>> going with option 2, because (1) I don't feel confident yet that all
>>> flag-related issues in the dependency solver have been fixed (up until just
>>> two weeks ago I was still answering user questions about those bugs), and
>>> (2) my experience with the flag approach was that it was very tedious to
>>> work with, and I remember seeing a lot of confusion among other packages as
>>> to the right way to specify dependencies.
>>>
>>> I still think that either option 1 or option 2 are better than the
>>> current status quo, so I'd rather not let this issue become a sticking
>>> point in the proposal. I'd say let's take a vote on option 1 or 2, and
>>> continue with the discussion deadline for this proposal (which seems to
>>> have unanimous support) of this Friday. Any objection?
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>
>> Given the lack of objections, I think it's fair to call this issue
>> decided in favor of the original proposal, with the modification under
>> "option 1" that Johan described. To summarize:
>>
>> 1. Create a new package, network-uri, version 2.6.0.0, which provides the
>> Network.URI module verbatim as provided by the network package today, and
>> has no dependency at all on network.
>> 2. Release network version 2.6.0.0, with no changes from the currently
>> released version, except that (a) no Network.URI module is provided, and
>> (b) there is no parsec dependency.
>>
>> Presumably, we will also add some documentation to the network and
>> network-uri cabal files with instructions on how to depend on the
>> Network.URI module.
>>
>> Johan: given that you're the current maintainer of network, how would you
>> like to proceed on implementing this? Do you want to do so yourself, or do
>> you want a pull request? And regarding network-uri: do you want to remain
>> maintainer of it, or should I (or someone else) take it over?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140816/17b34a08/attachment.html>