Build fails with missing haddock for HEAD

[Jost Berthold]

Hi Ian,

Well, the last failing attempt was due to my stupidness...
I set NO_HADDOCK_DOCS = "YES" (with quotes :-)
Now I removed the quotes - and added (SplitObjs = NO;GhcLibWays = ) on 
the way - so it should build (or else I will tell you).

However, I think GHC sources should complain early (upon configuration), 
or build something sensible without problems, when a user does not give 
any build.mk.
The whole build was just as a quick test to know what I get before 
merging with my changes. Previous attempts were all without /any/ 
build.mk, so to answer your question: there was nothing else in build.mk.

Thank you.
Jost

Ian Lynagh schrieb:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 01:16:14PM +0200, Jost Berthold wrote:
>> I have looked at ifBuildable.hs and Setup.hs, without getting a clue how 
>> to switch off the haddock phase.
>> ifBuildable checks for buildable packages and complains if core packages 
>> are not; and Setup is part of Cabal, calling quite a few internal 
>> functions which I don't know. None of these files mentions haddock.
>> The libraries/Makefile contains some parts depending on NO_HADDOCK_DOCS, 
>> so I set this to "YES" in mk/build.mk, but with no effect.
> 
> I've just done a build with this in mk/build.mk (only the last line
> should be relevant):
> 
> SRC_HC_OPTS     = -H64m -Onot -fasm
> GhcStage1HcOpts = -O -fasm
> GhcStage2HcOpts = -Onot -fasm
> GhcLibHcOpts    = -Onot -fasm
> GhcLibWays      =
> SplitObjs       = NO
> GENERATED_FILE  = :
> NO_HADDOCK_DOCS = YES
> 
> and make doesn't try to run haddock. I can't think why it wouldn't work
> for you; do you have anything else in mk/build.mk?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Ian