I agree. Two of my packages are in your list: easyrender and newsynth (both have "Nothing" for a reason in your list).
The problem for me is that, although you seem to have access to build logs, I don't. I have not found the way to access the hackage build logs for my packages or their documentation. Could you let me know where I can find them? For both packages, the documentation builds just fine on my local machine. It also builds fine in a virtual machine, under Windows and Ubuntu. Since I don't have access to Hackage's build logs, I cannot really figure out why the documentation is not building there. This is what has prevented me from fixing it. I even created "candidates" for the packages, before uploading the packages to the main index. Again, the documentation did not build, and again, I could not find any logs to tell me what went wrong. So the whole "candidate" mechanism has so far been useless to me. You mentioned that there is a way to upload the documentation manually. I'd love to do that. But how? I don't see any buttons or links on the package maintainer's pages that would allow me to do that. Any help appreciated, -- Peter Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote: > > Hi all, > > It seems that we are having a rather big issue with Hackage in recent > months and I'm sure many of you have noticed: a lot of packages aren't > getting their docs built. As far as I can tell, there can be multiple > reasonable causes: > > * Dependencies fail to build so your package does > * Your package fails to build directly > * Your package requires non-cabal libraries which aren't installed > * Your package requires different version of install libraries > > While all of these are understandable, there also seem to be problems > with some packages which are seemingly perfectly fine otherwise. This > problem is not new and has been reported[1]. There is even a system in > place with Hackage 2 that would grant package owners to manually upload > documentation and a system where some people (trustees and package > maintainers) have the ability to do things like deleting the broken docs > to have the builder try again[3] but it seems that this isn't actually > used[4]. > > Over night I hacked up a quick program to parse some Hackage parts to > see just how much stuff was broken. I have only considered the most > recent package versions. Out of the 7761 packages, 811 came up with > missing documentations. While it is a big number (~9.56%), it includes > every package on Hackage. Next thing that follows is to restrict the > search a bit. Only considering packages from 2013 and the still very > young 2014, 210 are missing documentation. 140 of those were uploaded > since August 2013 (around the Hackage 2 move). Remember that this is > only for most recent versions on Hackage. Assuming that we didn't have a > large spike in package uploads in second half of 2013 (I don't know, are > there any charts or something?), that's unreasonably more than in the > first half of 2013. > > It should be fairly clear that something is broken and I'd love to know > what. I snooped around in #hackage today for a bit and there doesn't > seem to be much sense of the urgency. Granted, people are busy but isn't > this a pretty important issue? It's not like it's recent either. > > What can we do? Why isn't it fixed? Are there any suspects? Why isn't > the trustee system being used to mitigate this problem a bit while it's > being fixed? Is there any way to improve the amount of things that can > be built by trying to work out any of the points at the top of this > e-mail? Honestly, scrolling through the build logs of packages, all > failures seem reasonable (Haddock parse failure, no dependencies > installed=85) and yet somehow I find myself having to click on older > version of packages to get docs very often recently. What changed? Is > there even anything to fix? Maybe I'm just getting unlucky with the > packages I click on recently. > > I have uploaded the list of packages with missing documentation that > have been uploaded on Hackage in 2013 and 2014 to [5]. The format is: > (packageUrl, MissingDocs (Maybe reason) packageVersion dateUploaded). If > your package is on there, you might want to consider uploading the docs > by hand for now! Packages with =91Nothing=92 for a reason have no build log. > See [6] for a reason for those. See [7] for how to view build logs yourself. > > PS: I'm unsure if these are the right lists to e-mail. I've been told > that Cabal folk maintain Hackage issues and considering so many broken > docs, libraries might also be interested in it. Feel free to point me > elsewhere. > PPS: There also seems to be a lot of 404 errors while trying to click on > some docs on some older packages that probably existed in the past. > Perhaps they were lost in the Hackage move or are a different issue all > together. > > [1]: https://github.com/haskell/hackage-server/issues/145 > [2]: > https://github.com/haskell/hackage-server/issues/145#issuecomment-29468613 > [3]: > https://github.com/haskell/hackage-server/issues/145#issuecomment-29422332 > [4]: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/trustees/ > [5]: http://fuuzetsu.co.uk/misc/sorted.txt > [6]: > https://github.com/haskell/hackage-server/issues/145#issuecomment-30129142 > [7]: > https://github.com/haskell/hackage-server/issues/145#issuecomment-29472445 > -- = > > Mateusz K. > _______________________________________________ > cabal-devel mailing list > cabal-devel@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel > _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
