* Herbert Valerio Riedel <h...@gnu.org> [2014-01-22 12:55:53+0100] > On 2014-01-22 at 10:08:02 +0100, Henning Thielemann wrote: > > Am 22.01.2014 09:57, schrieb Herbert Valerio Riedel: > >> On 2014-01-21 at 20:22:48 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > >>> I feel this blurs the roles of GHC and the Platform. > >> > >> IMO, that's a weak argument, as the roles are already blurred: > > > >> GHC comes with `haddock`, `hp2ps`, and `hpc` executables which could be > >> provided by the HP instead. > > > > At least haddock is bound to the specific GHC version. > > When I look at http://hackage.haskell.org/package/haddock, there are > multiple versions, 2.12.0 and the 4 versions of 2.13.*, which are all > declared to work with ghc == 7.6.*, that is, 5 haddock versions > compatible with 3 released versions of GHC 7.6. So while it may be bound > to a major version of the GHC API, haddock can obviously have more > releases than GHC has releases (otherwise it could just carry GHC's > version), and can therefore be updated.
Henning could be more specific in his claim that "haddock is bound to the specific GHC version". I guess he's referring to the binary rather than source distribution's compatibility. Assuming static linking w.r.t. the ghc package, the incompatibility with a different GHC version could still arise from the fact that haddock (as any other GHC API using application, I suppose) makes use of the GHC's lib directory, although I don't know the details. If we are talking about installing haddock from source (using cabal-install), then it should be no different from installing, say, ghc-mod. Roman
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
