On 10 October 2011 00:30, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> Ok, all committed now except for one of the cabal-install patches.
Thanks!
> I've not yet applied the cabal-install patch that makes the haddock
> options available via cabal install. I'm not sure about making them
> available directly as install
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 22:26 +0100, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
> Hi Hackagers,
>
> I've written a rough-and-ready documentation building service for the
> Hackage 2.0 effort. It is functional enough to submit build reports
> and build documentation for a few example packages on my local Hackage
> insta
Max Bolingbroke wrote:
> On 3 October 2011 21:30, Paterson, Ross wrote:
> > Don't you need #517 to get the cross-package links to go to the right
> > places?
>
> I didn't realise there was a ticket open for that. It's part of the
> changes that my patches make to cabal-install.
Oh, good, that's
On 3 October 2011 21:30, Paterson, Ross wrote:
> Don't you need #517 to get the cross-package links to go to the right places?
I didn't realise there was a ticket open for that. It's part of the
changes that my patches make to cabal-install.
Max
___
c
Max Bolingbroke writes:
> I've written a rough-and-ready documentation building service for the
> Hackage 2.0 effort. It is functional enough to submit build reports
> and build documentation for a few example packages on my local Hackage
> instance.
Don't you need #517 to get the cross-package li
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 22:26 +0100, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
> Hi Hackagers,
>
> I've written a rough-and-ready documentation building service for the
> Hackage 2.0 effort. It is functional enough to submit build reports
> and build documentation for a few example packages on my local Hackage
> insta
On 28 September 2011 22:26, Max Bolingbroke wrote:
> I also had to make some small changes to
> cabal-install that should go into the Cabal repo.
FYI I have found the patch "Only use -i. when compiling the Cabal
package" breaks some things and is not even really necessary. Do not
apply this one!
