Re: bit rotting of Haddock

On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 06:29:13PM +0200, Simon Hengel wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 04:05:24PM +0200, Simon Hengel wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 02:09:28PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 05:58:13PM +0200, Simon Hengel wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The library component of Haddock is still not build with GHC.  Would it
> > > > be sane to build/include the library component of Haddock with GHC, so
> > > > that there is only one "build flavor" of Haddock?
> > > 
> > > I suspect the current setup predates the ability for executables to
> > > depend on libraries in the same Cabal package. I'd suggest that the
> > > haddock executable should be changed to depend on the haddock library,
> > > and as far as I can see there is no reason why that should cause
> > > problems in the GHC build.
> > 
> > Ok, I just changed that [1] (on branch ghc-7.6).  Now the executable
> > depends on the library.  I'm validating it right now; if there are no
> > issues I'll push it.
> 
> After making an other minor modification to the cabal file [1] it fails
> with:
> 
>     ghc-cabal: XXX ghc-cabal can't handle more than one buildinfo yet
> 
> Would this require modifications to ghc-cabal?

Ah, hmm.

I think it would be easiest to use 2 dist directories: In dist-lib,
build the library only, and in dist-exe build the executable only.


Thanks
Ian