Ian Lynagh wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:00:03PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: >> Ian Lynagh wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:04:11AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: >>>> For of all, I don't like libghc6-*-doc, because many of these packages >>>> are useful not just for GHC, but also for Hugs. >>> I was using libghc6-foo-doc because there were hugs libraries built from >>> separate source packages. If they're unified then I'd use >> That is true, but they aren't documented there, right? If you want to >> see haddock docs for it, you've got to install libghc6-foo-doc. (And >> why not; it would seem silly to have separate Hugs docs for the same >> library.) > > In principle the docs could be different, e.g. hugs docs might not > include parallelism-related functions. This leads to the deeper issue of > packages not presenting uniform interfaces. > > Anyway, the right thing to do is just to build packages for all impls > from teh same source package, and then using libhaskell-foo-doc is fine > IMO. > >>> libhaskell-foo-doc. >> Why not just foo-doc? > > Because I don't think we should be making packages called things like > x11-doc > readline-doc > unix-doc > time-doc
Right, but certainly in these cases the source package is haskell-x11 instead of x11, right? So haskell-x11-doc makes sense. The "lib" prefix still doesn't quite make sense. > >>> Note that if ghc doesn't build on a platform then you don't have >>> haddock, so can't update a doc index. You also can't create docs on such >>> a platform. However, currently ghc builds on all platforms. >>> >>>> Secondly, why duplicate "haskell" in haskell-haskelldb-doc? >>> Consistency. >> With what? > > With the names used for packages which aren't called haskell* upstream. But why no "lib" prefix then? > > > Thanks > Ian > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
