On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:54:30AM +0100, John Lato wrote:

...

From: Bas van Dijk

On 17 June 2011 16:47, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:

...

So: ? ?Under Plan A, some Hackage packages will become un-compilable, ? ? ? and will require source code changes to fix them. ?I do not have ? ? ? ?any idea how many Hackage packages would fail in this way.

Of the 372 direct reverse dependencies of haskell98:

http://bifunctor.homelinux.net/~roel/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/revdeps/haskell...

there are 344 which also depend on base (See http://hpaste.org/47933 for calculating the intersection).

Is it easy to check, out of those 344, how many would build if the dependency on haskell98 were removed? I suspect it's not needed for the majority of cases.

+1 for Plan A, but interested in mitigating the negative consequences.

(Bas, your link doesn't work for me BTW, can't resolve the IP. May be my uni's dns cache.)

John Lato

This thread seems to focus way too much on Hackage alone. What about all the existing codebases out there, in production? -- Lars Viklund | zao@acc.umu.se