On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 15:20, Peter Simons
Hi Magnus,
> http://linode3.kiwilight.com/~magnus.therning/archhaskell/x86_64/
I completely agree that the naming scheme is sound. I don't see, however, how other packages are going to use it. Could you show us a concrete example, please? What does a package like, say haskell-pandoc, depend on?
It's dependencies would be unchanged. AFAICS there are roughly two sides to consider. Packages delivered in binary format, and packages delivered in source format (AUR). Binary The burden falls on the developers who provide the binary packages to make sure that all binary packages are mutually compatible. Source The burden falls on the user to make sure that his system is sane. Unfortunately it's rather simple to end up in a situation where this isn't the case. However, this is already true! Here's an example: 1. User installs haskell-platform, and gets haskell-hp-http 4000.0.9 (which provides haskell-http 4000.0.9) 2. User installs haskell-pandoc from AUR, it's built against HTTP 4000.0.9 3. User now installs haskell-http 4000.0.10 from AUR 4. User now removes haskell-hp-http, without removing/re-installing haskell-pandoc Step four is possible, since all the dependencies of haskell-pandoc are satisfied by the system (haskell-http >= 4000.0.5). However, I believe that GHC will complain, but our .install scripts use force and that shuts GHC up. After this the system is not in a good state, and it's unclear whether haskell-pandoc works any more. We also don't have any really good tools to assist the user when this situation occurs. It should be noted though that this is made no worse by providing haskell-hp-*. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe