#1093: Windows: haddock-html fields are wrong in package.conf
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  simonmar      |          Owner:  igloo      
     Type:  bug           |         Status:  closed     
 Priority:  normal        |      Milestone:  6.6.1      
Component:  Build System  |        Version:  6.6        
 Severity:  normal        |     Resolution:  fixed      
 Keywords:                |     Difficulty:  Easy (1 hr)
 Testcase:                |   Architecture:  Unknown    
       Os:  Windows       |  
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Changes (by igloo):

  * resolution:  => fixed
  * status:  new => closed

Comment:

 The filename problems turns out to be this:

 The haddock-html field is ultimately printed out by:
 {{{
 showFilePath :: FilePath -> Doc
 showFilePath = showToken

 showToken :: String -> Doc
 showToken str
  | not (any dodgy str) &&
    not (null str)       = text str
  | otherwise            = text (show str)
   where dodgy c = isSpace c || c == ','
 }}}
 Thus when haddock asks ghc-pkg for the haddock-html field and the path
 contains spaces, it doesn't get a plain path back like it expects. It then
 checks to see if the mangled path exists, which it doesn't.

 I think the right way to fix this would be to have a ghc-pkg flag that
 gives more machine understandable output. However, as I assume haddock-ghc
 will not have this problem I'm going to close this bug; we might want to
 open a new one for a machine-understandable flag to ghc-pkg anyway.

 I've opened bugs in Cabal for a couple of issues that came up:
 http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/115
 http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/116

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1093>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs

Reply via email to