I don't think attoparsec or any of its dependencies have any native requirements, and some poking around seems to support this, although I don't have any easy way of telling for certain (which is part of what I'm looking for).

On the other hand, something like postgresql-libpq clearly depends on the libpq C library (and possibly other things) as listed in the Extra-Libraries field in its cabal file, *as do anything that require postgresql-libpq* which fact does *not* directly show up in their cabal file.  Walking the tree and pulling that info is a possibility, but it needs to be done after dependency-resolution in case requirements change version to version.


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Peter Simons <simons@cryp.to> wrote:
Hi David,

 >> what exactly do you mean when by "package requirements"?
 >
 > Well, the most important thing is to make sure people can
 > successfully build things. Next most important is to minimize the
 > manual intervention required (and the degree to which that manual
 > intervention is spread out through time).

I am sorry, but I still don't understand what exactly you mean. Could
you please give a specific example of what exactly it is that you want?
Let's use the package "attoparsec" as an example. Could you please write
down the information you consider "package requirements" for that
package?

Take care,
Peter

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe