Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 09.01.2013, 20:17 +0800 schrieb Conrad Parker:
I think the only sensible way to use the "uri" package name would be to replace it (ie. remove Text.URI and add Network.URI).
sounds also fine. According to http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/uri this would break * github which, in violation of PVP has no upper bound on the uri version, and hence cannot complain about builds failing * hellnet, same * trajectory, same * isohunt, which is safe due to a <0.2 version constraint * an unknown quantify of private non-hackaged code So it seems the impact of a non-compatible upload to uri would be low. The question is more likely: Do maintainers have a strong ownership of names they claim on hackage, or do we liberally take over names when it is for the greater good? In Debian, such a name-take-over would be highly controversial, but I’m not saying that this is a good thing. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de | nomeata@debian.org | GPG: 0x4743206C xmpp: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/