Re: [Haskell-cafe] Correspondence between libraries and modules

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Gregg Lebovitz wrote:

On 4/23/2012 10:17 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 17:16, Gregg Lebovitz wrote:

...

On 4/23/2012 3:39 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:

The other dirty little secret that is carefully being avoided here is the battle between the folks for whom Haskell is a language research platform and those who use it to get work done. It's not entirely inaccurate to say the former group would regard a fragmented module namespace as a good thing, specifically because it discourages people from considering it to be stable....

Brandon, I find that a little hard to believe. If the issues are similar to other systems and languages, then I think it is more likely that no one has volunteered to work on it. You volunteering to help?

Does haskell/hackage have something like debian's lintian?

Debian has a detailed policy document that keeps evolving: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ Lintian tries hard to automate (as much as possible) policy-compliance http://lintian.debian.org/manual/index.html Eg how packages should use the file system http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/ Even 'boring' legal stuff like license-checking is somewhat automated http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ And most important is the dos and donts for package dependency making possible nice pics http://collab-maint.alioth.debian.org/debtree/ Of course as Wren pointed out, the Linux communities have enough manpower to police their distributions which haskell perhaps cannot. My question is really: Would not something like a haskell-lintian make such sanity checking easier and more useful for everyone?