You are correct this won't help(and may even hurt) in places where there is true mutual inter-dependency between parts of libraries. But I gave examples where I was sure this was not the case. Timothy ---------- Původní zpráva ---------- Od: Brandon Allbery <allbery.b@gmail.com> Datum: 18. 11. 2012 Předmět: Re: [Haskell-cafe] A small step towards solving cabal hell. " On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b@gmail.com (mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com)> wrote: " There's another consideration, which is are you optimizing hackage by pessimizing development? You could break xmonad-contrib into (usually) one package per module if you really wanted to --- but now the developers need to track a couple hundred packages and possibly as many darcs or git or whatever repos. You've just nibbled that project to death by making it too difficult for developers to bother with. " It also occurs to me that you might have also made the original problem much worse instead of better: now we have a hundred or so micro-packages that can get into diamond or worse dependency conflicts, where there was only one possible source of conflict. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allbery.b@gmail.com(mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com) ballbery@sinenomine.net(mailto:ballbery@sinenomine.net) unix/linux, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure http://sinenomine.net (http://sinenomine.net) "