Splitting Network.URI from the network package

[Johan Tibell]

The network-uri repo lives at https://github.com/haskell/network-uri for
now.


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20140816/4bb88f73/attachment-0001.html>