Re: Doc package naming
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
library.)
> libhaskell-foo-doc.
Why not just foo-doc?
> 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?
Reply to: