[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: out of memory when reading /usr/share/doc/ghc6-doc/libraries/base/base.haddock



Hi,

Am Freitag, den 20.02.2009, 11:09 +0200 schrieb Kari Pahula:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 05:45:55PM -0800, David Fox wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Joachim Breitner
> <nomeata@debian.org> wrote
> > >  * We mach all -doc packages arch any instead of all.
> > >   (Easiler but less elegant)
> 
> I'd rather not, since the bulk of those is still HTML.  If an average
> -doc is 500k, that times ~10 arches is 5MB.  That times 100 and
> counting Haskell packages is a bit.
> 
> > >  * We put the haddock interface files in the -dev packages.
> > >   (Not sure about the implications)
> 
> The implications are that without having a .haddock file available in
> -doc, ghc6-doc's indices won't get updated without having the -dev
> package installed, too.
> 
> There's that 50k-100k or so that a .haddock file will grow the -dev
> package's size, whether or not a -doc is installed.  But as far as
> space is concerned, it's still a lesser evil than arch:any -doc, IMHO.
> 
> I'm reassigning this to haskell-devscripts since it still puts
> .haddock files to -doc.

Note that it also needs to be fixed in ghc6 itself, of course, as
ghc6-doc is not built with haskell-devscripts. It also means that I’ll
have to wait for a new ghc6 build to get started here on amd64 :-)

> What does haddock even use from a .haddock file, to generate that
> library index?  There's the module names, links to the package
> specific docs and the cabal name of the package it's from, but
> anything else?  IMHO it wouldn't be too difficult to put that much
> into some plain old text file.  Do we even need to carry full .haddock
> files around, as far as -doc packages are concerned?  They're
> necessary for building -doc packages, but that's a separate issue.

I’m not sure if we should hack something up there, that needs to be
maintained and that’s duplicating existing functionality.

Putting the .haddock file in -dev should be fine, IMHO. But does that
mean that the -doc package should depend on the -dev package? Versioned
or unversioned?

Greetings,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil


Reply to: