[subject taken from cvs-libraries@; discussion directed to libraries@] does anyone else feel that there is something wrong in haskell library land? i'm picking on cabal here as one of "the usual suspects", but it seems to have become the rule that otherwise stable code has to be fixed every so often, to accomodate new compiler versions, new library dependency versions, new cabal versions, new xyz versions,.. it is almost as if everything feels free these days to evolve in non- backwards-compatible ways, following the motto "what do i care for my apis of yesterday?". with the ongoing trend towards separately evolving libraries rather than prepackaged kitchen-sink releases, this means that useful libraries die quickly, and have to be revived continuously, or they will be left behind. one symptom is "get the latest from hackage" replacing useful extra libraries kept in sync with each other (never mind that the hackage versions are no more likely to work without fixes than the in-repository versions). it is often small things ("that function/option has been renamed", "you now need to import x instead of y", "you can work around this by using 2 cabal files, then removing one depending on context", etc.), but as all dependencies keep eroding in this way, haskell projects are now built on sand rather than firm foundations, requiring constant attention just to avoid falling behind - attention that would better be focussed on development than maintenance. just a thought, claus ps. perhaps i've misunderstood, and there is in fact a haskell cabal trying to introduce as many version incompatibilities as possible, to ensure a market demand for cabal.. ?-)