Hi Goswin. Excerpts from Goswin von Brederlow's message of Qua Jan 26 11:28:59 -0200 2011: (...) > But having some generated html files depend on the exact ghc version > seems extrem. Yes, I don't see the need of adding a Depends: field to -doc packages. > So splitting out the version dependent .haddoc files into > the -dev packages (as mentioned in another mail in this thread) seems > the right, or at least the sanest, thing to do. This is the current approach, and it's not good, in my opinion, because it makes the index be created, with broken links. The .haddock file is used by ghc6-doc to know which packages should be listed in /usr/share/doc/ghc6-doc/html/libraries/index.html . If the -dev package is installed, but not the -doc, the links for the modules in this package are listed in this file, but they're broken. (...) > And with the -dev package being arch:any the whole issue of > arch:all binNMUs becomes mood? There are two issues. The first one is that the links in the index are not generated with old .haddock files. The other one is that new versions of haddock will produce different HTML files, and it's a good thing to have all documentation using the latest format haddock produces. I still think arch:all binNMU would be the exact solution, but I'm thinking about using sourceful uploads instead, since that seems to cause problems. Greetings. (...)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature