Hi Matthias,
Matthias Kilian <[email protected]> writes:
>> Should I split the port into multi-package and limit -haddock to amd64?
>
> Would it be an option to just don't generate the GHC docs on i386
> but still build a single package (including the haddock binary)?
HADDOCK_DOCS=NO seems to case the haddock binary be skipped along with
xhtml. If we want the haddock binary to remain a part of ghc package
we'll have to go deeper into the ghc build.
> That would keep things simpler (no multi packages), and we should
> still be able to generate haddock-docs for other hs-packages on
> i386. It could be done with a pkg/PFRAG.no_i386 listing all the
> haddock-generated files and adding a
>
> %%no_i386%%
>
> in main pkg/PLIST.
This is indeed appealing, though more tightly connected to the current
pair of supported arches.
On the topic of hs-packages, I believe they will disappear with cabal
builds. We end up with only the binary packages and some build time
duplicate compilation.
> The build time distinction in the Makefile could than be done with
>
> HADDOCK_DOCS-amd64 = YES
> HADDOCK_DOCS-i386 = NO
>
> ...
>
> echo HADDOCK_DOCS=${HADDOCK_DOCS-${ARCH}} >>${WRKSRC}/mk/build.mk
Nice! I really wanted something like this!
>> Maybe we can forgo haddock generation entirely? We package up 3500+
>> files that I doubt anybody ever uses.
>
> I'm not sure. IIRC, a couple of years ago, someone mentioed to
> prefer looking up documentation locally.
I guess it's not a huge cost to keep generating haddocks on amd64.
Thanks
Greg
