Stackage has a much easier time since it only builds against one version of dependencies and one version of GHC. Adding a package to stackage also requires that someone makes sure that any external build dependencies are provided. Hackage on the other hand does not know any of these things so there is a lot that can go wrong.

But new library versions can also be temporarily blocked from stackage, so it can take months before a new version has docs on stackage.org.

For library authors stackage and hackage, cabal-install and stack are to a large degree complimentary to each other, you will likely want to use both. Application authors have the freedom to choose.

- Adam

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:33 AM Patrick Pelletier <code@funwithsoftware.org> wrote:

On 11/9/16 2:35 PM, Tom Ellis wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 01:11:14PM -0800, Patrick Pelletier wrote:
>> On 11/9/16 5:06 AM, Tom Ellis wrote:
>>> If you get your package into Stackage then the docs will be built there too,
>>> and it's probably more reliable. I uploaded a new version of Opaleye
>>> yesterday and the docs haven't been built by Hackage yet but they have been
>>> built by Stackage.
>> I get your point, but I don't really like seeing the suggestion that
>> Hackage should be abandoned because Stackage is better.
> I never suggested that!

I apologize; I know that's not exactly what you said, and I shouldn't
have put words in your mouth. I think I was just expressing frustration
with a general feeling I get sometimes that stack / Stackage /
haskell-lang.org are trying to replace cabal / Hackage / haskell.org
instead of complement them. But I misspoke in attributing that to you.
Sorry.

--Patrick

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.