matt:
Resending this because I forgot to cc the list when I responded to Magnus.
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 12:07:35PM +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:
I think it'd be worthwhile to provide packages with haddock-generated documentation for all haskell packages. However, I'm not convinced that the docs should be packaged with the binary components of the package.
Generally, Arch users expect docs to come with the package as provided by upstream, and not as some separate package.
Historically Arch stripped docs out of the packages, but that policy was reversed over a year ago. See the hue and cry over here: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2008-April/005574.html
We also need to specify the haddock version, have that on every person's machine (easier now it is part of the Haskell Platform) and be robust in the tolerance of doc generation failure. -- Don