<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">From: Jens Petersen <<a href="mailto:petersen@haskell.org">petersen@haskell.org</a>><br>
<br>
[Me late to the party as usual...]<br>
<br>
On 9 November 2010 21:50, Ross Paterson <<a href="mailto:ross@soi.city.ac.uk">ross@soi.city.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
> Let's do both:<br>
> - a set of packages under community control that we're trying to make<br>
> consistent.<br>
> - a set of package versions that are popular, meet objective standards<br>
> and have been tested to build together.<br>
> But let's not try to force these to be the same.<br>
<br>
I agree with Ross: and have been thinking the same lately<br>
that it would be really nice to have a midway between the strictness<br>
of HP and the fast flowing package stream of hackage.<br>
<br>
It would great to have a consistent large set of source packages<br>
brought together into one stable package repo - it would be big with<br>
100s of packages but only one version of a package would be allowed<br>
and built on top of current HP which should be the base of course.<br>
Probably the main barrier to entry/updates would be not breaking<br>
or conflicting with any other package.<br>
<br>
Anyone interested in this? I think Linux distros and Haskell<br>
development would benefit greatly from such a large consistent<br>
collection of libraries, which could be updated in continuous<br>
rolling mode during the life-time of each HP release. There<br>
could also later be different streams (stable, testing, unstable, etc).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree this would be useful, particularly if it would help distro packagers. I'd be willing to contribute to such an effort.</div>
<div><br></div><div>John Lato</div></div><br>