Good point. But could you remind me what package this Makefile is in?
As far as I remember, this Makefile is for the private use of package
authors, and is not included in any publicly available code.
-- Peter
Serge Kosyrev wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> A notable detail we should consider is -- not sen
Hi Mateusz,
of course you could do the same thing with a bash script. It's a
matter of personal taste and workflow. Just for the record, you can
pass arguments into a Makefile like this: "make PACKAGE=bla". And "$$"
is indeed an escape, to denote a literal dollar sign (as opposed to a
Makefile var
agreed, cabal-install should definitely get support for doing this
correctly added in. (since this is going to become a common activity for
maintainers who's libs need extra things installed that the doc builders
lack)
Any volunteers?
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Mateusz Kowalczyk
wrote:
>
On 07/01/14 01:23, Peter Selinger wrote:
> Thanks, that's even better!
>
> However, I find that the --contents-location option to cabal haddock
> does not work properly. Apparently it not only prevents index.html
> from being built (which makes modest sense), but it also prevents
> index-frames.ht
Thanks, that's even better!
However, I find that the --contents-location option to cabal haddock
does not work properly. Apparently it not only prevents index.html
from being built (which makes modest sense), but it also prevents
index-frames.html from being built (which does not). So in the fra
Mateusz, thanks for the great sleuth work and communication on this.
I'm working on fixing my missing docs (hledger*, broken due to
pretty-show requiring a newer-than-default happy executable).
___
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
htt
On 05/01/14 10:15, 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:
>
>
i'm sure patches are welcome to improve hackage infrastructure in these
ways! :)
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Peter Selinger wrote:
> Thank you, this worked like a charm! (Modulo using dist/doc/html
> instead of dist/doc). Now all my packages have online documentation.
>
> One day I'd still l
Thank you, this worked like a charm! (Modulo using dist/doc/html
instead of dist/doc). Now all my packages have online documentation.
One day I'd still like to find out why it didn't build automatically.
But as long as documentation builder doesn't generate a log saying
what problem it thought cou
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>>
>> I think the fundamental problem is that Haddock is now built on top of
>> ghc. So if a package cannot be built by ghc (for whatever reason, e.g.
>> missing C library dependency),
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
> I think the fundamental problem is that Haddock is now built on top of
> ghc. So if a package cannot be built by ghc (for whatever reason, e.g.
> missing C library dependency), then it cannot be documented either. This
> is a good deal le
On 6 Jan 2014, at 12:32, Henning Thielemann wrote:
> Am 06.01.2014 12:59, schrieb Mateusz Kowalczyk:
>> On 06/01/14 10:27, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>>>
>>> Haddock also was once stand-alone. I think it might be time to wind the
>>> clock backwards and retrieve this desirable property.
>>
>> Was
Oops, seems I sent to libraries. Let's keep the thread on cabal-devel
only as here's where the replies happened.
On 06/01/14 10:27, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>
> On 5 Jan 2014, at 10:15, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
>
>> It seems that we are having a rather big issue with Hackage in recent
>> months and
On 5 Jan 2014, at 10:15, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
> 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:
>
> * De
On 05/01/14 18:15, Peter Selinger wrote:
> I agree. Two of my packages are in your list: easyrender and newsynth
> (both have "Nothing" for a reason in your list).
If a package has Nothing for a reason, that means that no build log is
available. From what I've read yesterday, it's a problem with t
On 05/01/14 14:14, Sven Panne wrote:
> My ALUT package is among the ones without documentation, and I have a
> theory what's wrong (probably a missing installed C library/package
> libalut-dev, see
> https://github.com/haskell-openal/ALUT/blob/master/.travis.yml). Two
> questions:
>
>* As a pa
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 documentati
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 pa
18 matches
Mail list logo
