Many people seem upset about my words and/or actions. I think giving a bit of background should help clarify the matters here. Last time a similar situation came up[1], I simply forked a package (it was regex-tdfa) and notified others so that if they have the same problem, they may reuse my work instead of replicating it. [1]: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2014-January/112466.html Many people were concerned with that, arguing that this was unresponsible on my part and following this trend would lead to hackage fragmentation [2,3]. [2]: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2014-January/112471.html [3]: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2014-January/112489.html So this time I made a compromise and sent out a couple of emails (which I didn't *have* to send) and gave a two days notice (which again I didn't *have* to give — I can fix the problem for myself instanteneously by simple forking). As I suspected, this was completely in vain. This didn't change anything, and eventually I still had to fork the package in order to get my packages back to installable state ASAP. The only thing I got in return is accusation of being hasty. So I'm gonna mark this as a failed experiment, and return to my policy of simply forking the packages whenever I think it's the optimal option for me and my users. (I'm not even sure whether I should notify this list of my forks. As I said, I'm doing this primarily so that others can reuse my work, but the kind of response I get each time is discouraging and distracts me from doing other work.) BTW, 'temporary' has been fixed today. Nevertheless, I will continue to maintain my fork, as I don't want this situation to repeat in the future. So if you already switched, or plan to switch to temporary-rc, you should feel safe to do so. Roman