haddock 2 and GHC
igloo at earth.li
Sun Aug 17 07:02:52 EDT 2008
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:02:54AM +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
> Since dynamic linking is on the table for 6.10 anyway, wouldn't that work?
I don't think we're confident that shared libraries will make it for
> >Alternatively, we could build haddock and haddock the libraries, but not
> >ship haddock with GHC. I think that some people prefer this anyway.
> >However, if we do that, people need to make sure that they install a
> >version of haddock that is compatible with their .haddock files.
> Isn't it even worse? One needs a version of haddock that was built
> against the same ghc version, because of haddock reading ghc .hi
> file (via ghc api), right?
Right: So your GHC 6.10.1 bindist says it needs haddock 2.1.*, and you
then need to find a 2.1.* that was built against 6.10.1.
> Wasn't the latest workaround plan to build ghc without haddocking,
> then build haddock with that ghc, then do the haddocking? In which
> case, either there is no haddocking, or there is a haddock.
I'm not keen on this (if I understand what you mean correctly). On
systems like Debian we need to be able to just build the GHC package,
and on systems like gentoo users don't want to have to build GHC twice
just so that they can get the library docs.
I guess one alternative would be for a GHC installation to include the
bootlibs source code, and for haddock to haddock this source code when
it is built.
> >So currently I'm thinking that the best way is:
> >* Build the ghc-paths library when building GHC, but don't install it
> >* Build haddock when building GHC, but don't install it
> If you build these anyway, why not install them, for a local build at
I don't think we should be installing different things in different
scenarios like that.
More information about the Cvs-ghc