Proposal: Include GHC version target in libraries' description
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Problem: A frequent usecase for especially base is browsing the haddocks online on hackage (I do this myself sometimes). A frequent associated pain with this is remembering which base version corresponds to which GHC version (I feel this myself sometimes). Current solution: Consult the boot library version chart[0]. An additional step -- where there needn't be one -- may annoy the user. Furthermore, if they don't know about the chart then they're essentially lost; which usually leads to them consulting another user - -- and now we've wasted a little time for *two* of our users for no real good reason. I conjecture that this happens quite often. Which means our culmination of GHC-related time waste eventually adds up quite a bit, detracting from the overall experience. Proposed improvement: Add "[library]-[library version] is bundled with ghc-[GHC version]." in the description string of [library].cabal. This immediately clears up the confusion when looking at [library]'s hackage page. [0] <https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Libraries/VersionHisto ry> - -- Alexander alexander@plaimi.net https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVwezFAAoJENQqWdRUGk8B8jEQAMuAYjn25VB/aG5VWr8IdPoZ OSoUu+26XdJhmbOcYzHWje7gUs8FSfqxHyflasiO22uWOHHO3kfyzwOEZX0Nqc0b WboMRuNZ5dEPGAGFqxi/DWzPoaQ9shA+EUmCl8r2Qn9W7ZximaP3b1ORO0UvvgBo YK3T0f4TCoYKOYS2Txl5gjO3FKK6STdNxcELs3p6g0+paf5crEf3hcw2WZCcsdSc 0yU3dl5iFin4ofaByDmx7tj1ACYn7MusEH4zF+jjGYb4XbIV+WCy78Nsmlqt3AF9 P++HD4DMmh+rXW9tkqAbTgxn3LAgrkB0F3vYAEfiH4xFmWlQyzANtjILN6WYDOt0 5Gnpz/Meg6aGJY0U5y/XAPxzpar7oc/HPbdjS747iOTLj4dsOHeswmw++goG8ugw j/Yq00T17/3RJlZ03OdaRyl+HrXiNCq0J48LUUJu9jY9LCjr57hKZa3fFFM++fIU UaIMllxCiOdGDaTJCCZ/HEvZBtvxaeWWEc/Zi2XrtMI4PcAS/QACxlJJsHfnb/1B mCi5fIWjzX0UPo6YeRI2MeUlasKp8fLPm8AGKHQJGx2XHNHToNFR5X75VpCWWlp3 oboVm1qN46qpwnkrxWrIvlK40fLjmiZZMb0HS4cm+4ofNFc+CQMBqQ5fZxrwAO7e CTzw91s+6tbcp43Y+lgI =rmBv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Proposed improvement: Add "[library]-[library version] is bundled with ghc-[GHC version]." in the description string of [library].cabal. This immediately clears up the confusion when looking at [library]'s hackage page. Following a discussion with Herbert & Duncan, it would seem Hackage/.cabal may be a better place to solve this. I don't want this information to be lost on IRC, so I'd like to summarise here on the
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 05/08/15 13:00, Alexander Berntsen wrote: list. We can: -make GHC a distribution and use that field, -use the platform feature, -make a new field -- bundled-with, bundles, or similar, -or use the package collection feature. All of these have upsides and downsides. But we should choose one and be done with it. So let's make a decision. I like the third option, but I value resolving it quickly more than getting my preferred colour on the bikeshed. - -- Alexander alexander@plaimi.net https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVzbUbAAoJENQqWdRUGk8BZ2IP/AswmP6vLgoiD4TgEBUuUtcE w8TxK73AM5814Yewgv6NMq4kaoxWh16MSivcTVfjRZYKXvGZeDY8458wZX1W8qou 3zHgiu63rH8bcSrwfcGcnT7d+2/NI5xKCfHlUhxA8vFNwk80qBCzTX/SajAWyg2J toRGnmCJz14jKdtGBMWJ3bcZrSJS1/+LAnmU3qB+v1bm0gEpQROyjhls5IMtkoHs Bu2TA7fUO2+DEvvTZoyc7ZFmEnnh966U1CIReeMbUpxi3lSke2P2M2I104fsqaxE wVs7Z7cd3XA2YjorKmk/yOTndlTj5X69ifu64WvIEUNMreUbp6EkTKEoGPhJwyHE MUirlRLsptzmcOXANnuryFSey0WLTx+B7QfWbrl8JiuHj43eLlU+YsTiPd/ak/xP noR02pqhF6TclkXg1ls8q+o40N4g4ndnL5B3of/IPSItVKnwpCKi5Qz713/P4wmv CWNu19SEOiI38nqT1OzczhAtvCiwVPaTJ2qmPhRVPIwnG0DklNBxY4Xg4ua/S5zM jrxE6Cl9CqsdLQ2nq8CHJI+G6PBW7K5suA3SpXQPI+leQV+d1I9VyFEkBB0sKmrg YovPmvQWIAmHfVw7eutXx7NbgBVd6ipIfxQXfy/P9eNgfIx4bD269XP0LbdB3MIE Mx/X6WFHUvOQv78U1pd2 =0os9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-make GHC a distribution and use that field, -use the platform feature, -make a new field -- bundled-with, bundles, or similar, -or use the package collection feature.
[L]et's make a decision. I get the feeling nobody liked my original proposal of just writing it in the .cabal file, so I'm reluctant to put effort into a set of patches
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 14/08/15 11:30, Alexander Berntsen wrote: that will be rejected. On the other hand I see no progress here. Does nobody care? I am keen on hacking on either solution if someone would just give some sort of acknowledgement here. - -- Alexander alexander@plaimi.net https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJV9ragAAoJENQqWdRUGk8B70YP/iyRI/F9qNJAVpHxxPX3nxA9 Z7sJ8hO/vazF15Zumcer0x8cm42VCZyexrnE/S+0p513t5GVUAcYndB3kgALgqvX 7UnimodWkNwIFttrHgNIMXkrx2ezBeDg17wPND2AbCeLOajUn6KC4bylfg/ymht+ eXVUaitVM9jva/M3LpooPY+gIeuAOsMrPMzW64Dz3c3PzKrTTXm3GxYygs8iWFgD euU/ry1zP/UYKdwdoaLd5h87t4RNuahms6BQKXfVFCxnDGlodDk3HI7mhFebiPg7 aHZh332+goUGTW84OoVd2N7oKfY2ge1MGPJxTJWNwv72x8QhmEyd+0DALMx0Ra8T GTZe1OkZOP+kCrI+CVUeOrxjBvHI7bxedGW2RsJzKO6F6zGf7x4YYNwMcpHlhux+ fK8CxebXDBxmboy0LSjtiNxhX2EiXC1SiqT/Wa3/MnUeM3Z+O5AXcud1MpJXH5qf hWIBD1gLkAaeovZqqKz9Kf9fLzHtPphMMc+EWwojdgoTwXRc5QQMFpIkBU90gsqL uEFhoMF9aCIhkymo+0sReAJZsSNFAlgv8Ka56CLipIIzRGIr2z+VU8a3tbT7Cnvg tnWA9kOpLV2vokxQghEBokSzuTeFUReWYNDvOkm85KqAHn+9jkCzqA5z1B8K7YRy thN93we1J3EE4Xs7Lezw =MEGt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (1)
-
Alexander Berntsen