Yo, There appears to be big hole in how we handle haddock generated docs, with ghc, at least in Windows. I am very much not expert on this, so please let me know if any of this is wrong! I think the problem is that every stage on current infrastructure assumes they know where docs are, and are going to be. In a matter of fact, they do not. * haddock assumes * either absolute locations, or * docs bunched together. * Cabal just redirects the information from ghc-pkg and commandline. * Ghc build/install assumes docs are crammed into it's installation directory, but at least has $topdir functionality to defer decision making a bit. Here I have few situations that are currently broken, at least when using packages as generated by cabal+cabal2wix. * User install ghc in different location than c:\ghc\ghc-6.6.1 - all links to base and other bundled packages are broken. * User has different localisation or drive for Program Files than packager - all links to other non-ghc-bundled packages are wrong. (And when cabal2wix supports non-admin installs:) * User-installed packages - all links to user-installed packages are wrong. How can we solve this? * installing packages in common directory structure similar to docs bundled with ghc. (Cabal's --html-location can achieve this) * This directory structure contains no package versions?, so only one version of package can be installed (patch haddock). * non-admin packages cannot refer correctly to admin packages, as docs would be in different dirs (fix: copy files around as post-install step.) * No links from non-ghc-bundled packages to, well, anything. * Solves nothing, except no frustrating broken links - let them assume we can't do it. * Duncan suggested using html entities - it would require writing out small index at post-install. Anyone know if this is possible and reliable technique? * Reinstalling package in a different location might leave dependent packages with broken links. * Using a post-install step to rewrite links. * Seems fragile. * Installs require even more logic. * Writing a local web server that does all the correct uri mapping for user. * Rather heavy, and additional dependency. * Your idea here! Thanks, Esa