From: Jens Petersen

[Me late to the party as usual...]

On 9 November 2010 21:50, Ross Paterson wrote:

...

Let's do both: - a set of packages under community control that we're trying to make consistent. - a set of package versions that are popular, meet objective standards and have been tested to build together. But let's not try to force these to be the same.

I agree with Ross: and have been thinking the same lately that it would be really nice to have a midway between the strictness of HP and the fast flowing package stream of hackage.

It would great to have a consistent large set of source packages brought together into one stable package repo - it would be big with 100s of packages but only one version of a package would be allowed and built on top of current HP which should be the base of course. Probably the main barrier to entry/updates would be not breaking or conflicting with any other package.

Anyone interested in this? I think Linux distros and Haskell development would benefit greatly from such a large consistent collection of libraries, which could be updated in continuous rolling mode during the life-time of each HP release. There could also later be different streams (stable, testing, unstable, etc).

I agree this would be useful, particularly if it would help distro packagers. I'd be willing to contribute to such an effort. John Lato