Re: Doc package naming
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:00:03PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:04:11AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> >> For of all, I don't like libghc6-*-doc, because many of these packages
> >> are useful not just for GHC, but also for Hugs.
> > I was using libghc6-foo-doc because there were hugs libraries built from
> > separate source packages. If they're unified then I'd use
> That is true, but they aren't documented there, right? If you want to
> see haddock docs for it, you've got to install libghc6-foo-doc. (And
> why not; it would seem silly to have separate Hugs docs for the same
In principle the docs could be different, e.g. hugs docs might not
include parallelism-related functions. This leads to the deeper issue of
packages not presenting uniform interfaces.
Anyway, the right thing to do is just to build packages for all impls
from teh same source package, and then using libhaskell-foo-doc is fine
> > libhaskell-foo-doc.
> Why not just foo-doc?
Because I don't think we should be making packages called things like
> > Note that if ghc doesn't build on a platform then you don't have
> > haddock, so can't update a doc index. You also can't create docs on such
> > a platform. However, currently ghc builds on all platforms.
> >> Secondly, why duplicate "haskell" in haskell-haskelldb-doc?
> > Consistency.
> With what?
With the names used for packages which aren't called haskell* upstream.