Re: haddock-2.3.0 literate comments discarded from .lhs input

2009-05-29 Thread Duncan Coutts
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 23:40 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote: If you don't want to move from absolute paths for non-core packages, the current system should just work, right? Yes. The current system being the $topdir one. Yep. It works, it's just not nice, it's ghc-specific and only make

Re: haddock-2.3.0 literate comments discarded from .lhs input

2009-05-28 Thread Claus Reinke
Currently, there seem to be $topdir and $httptopdir. And I can't see a justification for there being two. Each variable provides an indirection that decouples the installation from one source of _independent_ relocations (btw, I've always imagined that it is called 'http' instead of 'html' to

Re: haddock-2.3.0 literate comments discarded from .lhs input

2009-05-28 Thread Duncan Coutts
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 11:16 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote: How about this: a way to specify paths in the package registration info that are relative to the location of the package db they are in. ahem. That sounds like a backwards step, being dependent on two locations instead of one.

Re: haddock-2.3.0 literate comments discarded from .lhs input

2009-05-28 Thread Claus Reinke
But if you're registering global packages that are installed outside of the GHC tree then you wouldn't register them using relative paths. I'm not saying everything must use relative paths. Please don't move your windmills while I'm fighting them!-) If you don't want to move from absolute

Re: haddock-2.3.0 literate comments discarded from .lhs input

2009-05-28 Thread Duncan Coutts
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 14:12 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote: But if you're registering global packages that are installed outside of the GHC tree then you wouldn't register them using relative paths. I'm not saying everything must use relative paths. Please don't move your windmills while I'm

Re: haddock-2.3.0 literate comments discarded from .lhs input

2009-05-28 Thread Claus Reinke
If you don't want to move from absolute paths for non-core packages, the current system should just work, right? Yes. The current system being the $topdir one. Though it also allows for the possibility of relocatable sets of packages that are not installed relative to the compiler. But more

Re: haddock-2.3.0 literate comments discarded from .lhs input

2009-05-27 Thread Duncan Coutts
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 15:10 +0100, Alistair Bayley wrote: Andrea, 2009/3/19 Andrea Vezzosi sanzhi...@gmail.com: It turns out that those variables are there to allow relocation, in fact $topdir is expanded by Distribution.Simple.GHC.getInstalledPackages, it seems that $httptopdir has

Re: haddock-2.3.0 literate comments discarded from .lhs input

2009-05-27 Thread Claus Reinke
It turns out that those variables are there to allow relocation, in fact $topdir is expanded by Distribution.Simple.GHC.getInstalledPackages, it seems that $httptopdir has been overlooked. I'd be tempted to say that it's ghc-pkg dump/describe responsibility to expand those vars instead,