On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael@snoyman.com> wrote:

I'm sure you can guess that I disagree with this statement. But I also find it absurd in the given context: the Haskell Platform package we're discussing right now (cgi) doesn't follow the PVP!

Another reason to get rid of it. Besides, it was grandfathered in when the platform was created, and several of the HP grandfathered libraries have (or had) fairly serious documentation or quality issues. Would "pretty" make the bar if it was nominated today?

Beyond just trying to force the rest of the world to adhere to the PVP, what actual reason is there to require Haskell Platform packages adhere to the PVP? I assume you're referring to the fact that tls doesn't include upper bounds on its dependencies, because it certainly *does* follow PVP's versioning guidelines on its own version number. But once a package is included in the platform, there's no opportunity for build failures since the platform will be locking down versions of all its dependencies.

So besides trying to find another means of enforcing PVP adherence on the rest of us, what value is there in this new requirement?

It's not a new requirement, it's been there since the beginning of the Haskell Platform project if you would take the time to read http://trac.haskell.org/haskell-platform/wiki/VersionNumbers. I do realize you're on the other side of this issue, that you've chosen to violate this longstanding established policy, that you may have good reasons for this, and that (sadly) nobody has added technological measures to Hackage to prevent you from doing so.

However, I suspect the policy is not going to change anytime soon: I don't think your side of the issue has the votes, nor is there an attractive enough counter-proposal.

--
Gregory Collins <greg@gregorycollins.net>