On 17/04/10 21:26, Don Stewart wrote:

magnus:

...

I notice that haddock documentation isn't built into binary packages (haskell-dataenc, haskell-network, etc), while it is shipped with GHC itself. Furthermore, all packages built from AUR will include haddock documentation by default.

Is there any reason for *not* shipping haddock documentation with all pre-built packages?

At the moment this is causing me grief because haskell mode for vim relies on local documentation for features like "add import statement for identifier under the cursor", and with the current situation it will only find identifiers in GHC and AUR-built packages.

I think all our packages should ship with documentation (they should be of the form generated by cabal2arch, effectively)

I agree. So, is there a way of filing identical bugs against a large-ish number of packages in Arch? /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

magnus:

On 17/04/10 21:26, Don Stewart wrote:

...

magnus:

...

I notice that haddock documentation isn't built into binary packages (haskell-dataenc, haskell-network, etc), while it is shipped with GHC itself. Furthermore, all packages built from AUR will include haddock documentation by default.

Is there any reason for *not* shipping haddock documentation with all pre-built packages?

At the moment this is causing me grief because haskell mode for vim relies on local documentation for features like "add import statement for identifier under the cursor", and with the current situation it will only find identifiers in GHC and AUR-built packages.

I think all our packages should ship with documentation (they should be of the form generated by cabal2arch, effectively)

I've raised http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/19236

Thanks.