On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:36 AM, John Lato <jwlato@gmail.com> wrote:
7.  awesomeApp users attempt to do cabal update; cabal install, which fails inscrutably (because it tries to mix foo-0.2 with bar-0.1)

There's nothing in this situation that requires any of these packages be unmaintained.  The problem is that, rather than wanting to reproduce a fixed set of package versions (which cabal already allows for if that's really desired), sometimes it's desirable that updates be held back in active code bases

Not to mention, if I maintain "bar", I can basically never go on vacation, because the dude who maintains "foo" can push a new update and break all my users any time.

G
--
Gregory Collins <greg@gregorycollins.net>