Peter Simons
Sorry, my wording was probably misleading. I didn't mean any disrespect or opposition to Isaac Jones. (snip)
None taken!
Ketil Z. Malde writes:
It seems to me that binary packages should be mostly optional, and can be deferred to the compiler developers to snarf from the "hslibs" (stable) hierarchy and include at their leisure?
Binary packages can also be provided by distribution maintainers (like a Debian maintainer). I read over Peter's proposal, and I consider it more of a distribution proposal than a library infrastructure proposal. So far I have been thinking of distribution infrastructures as the last step in the process, there are some immediate issues that I see however, and none of these are showstoppers. - On the good side, there are probably a lot of orphaned libraries that need a home. haskell-libs would be a good place for storing them and helping them to percolate into a repository of more useful libraries. - Despite being an open CVS tree, the approach is rather "cathedral". I have been thinking that we want a standard way for individuals to distribute libraries and tools, and then to create a central repository of those once the library authors conform to a particular interface. - Some authors won't want to store a copy of their code on another CVS repository if their projects already have a home. This could cause redundancy and / or forking. I'd be interested to see how your proposal fits with mine in your eyes. As I mentioned, this discussion illustrates the need for us to come up with a set of requirements. I think that you and I see similar solutions, but they are somewhat upside-down from one another. Also, you mentioned hbuild, can you discuss how this improves upon hmake? peace, isaac