Simon Peyton-Jones: > | I think using a different package name is a reasonable compromise. > | Personally, I think "dph-vector" or "ghc-vector" would be sufficiently > | explicit to show that it is not a HP sanctioned package, but I could live > | with something slightly more obscure, too. > > I really wonder whether it's worth the bother. (And I'm sure there will be > bother, as we apply bug-fixes to 'vector' that must be propagated to > 'dph-vector'.) > > Yes, the 'vector' package will be installed, but it'll be hidden. Yes a > Cabal package that depends on 'vector' would install without downloading and > installing 'vector'; but is that so bad? > > I think we are making a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill here. It's not > even as if 'vector' was in a terrible state; we intend to kick off the HP > process for it shortly, so it soon will be a HP package. > > I suggest that it might be simpler just to let sleeping dogs lie and do what > we did with GHC 6.12; ie ship with GHC but as a hidden package.
I agreed to the compromise of renaming the package because Duncan appeared to be very keen to do something to keep people from using it. I'm also perfectly happy to leave the name as it is and hide the package. I'm happy to leave it to you to decide the name. Manuel _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list Cvs-ghc@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
