I get a different bunch of "post-build package check" complaints. Does anyone else have a clue what is going on? I do not. Mine are reproduced below. They appear to be non-fatal warnings. I bet it's because I have HADDOCK_DOCS=NO, but if so that should surely suppress all these warnings? It would be great if someone could figure out what the post-build package check is doing and why it isn't working for Mateusz. Simon == Start post-testsuite package check Timestamp Mon Jan 6 17:45:05 GMT 2014 for /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/inplace/lib/package.conf.d/package.cache Timestamp Mon Jan 6 17:45:05 GMT 2014 for /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/inplace/lib/package.conf.d (same as cache) using cache: /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/inplace/lib/package.conf.d/package.cache Warning: haddock-interfaces: /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/libraries/dph/dph-lifted-vseg/dist-install/doc/html/dph-lifted-vseg/dph-lifted-vseg.haddock doesn't exist or isn't a file Warning: haddock-interfaces: /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/libraries/dph/dph-lifted-copy/dist-install/doc/html/dph-lifted-copy/dph-lifted-copy.haddock doesn't exist or isn't a file Warning: haddock-interfaces: /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/libraries/dph/dph-lifted-boxed/dist-install/doc/html/dph-lifted-boxed/dph-lifted-boxed.haddock doesn't exist or isn't a file ...etc | -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] On Behalf Of | Mateusz Kowalczyk | Sent: 07 January 2014 03:13 | To: ghc-devs@haskell.org | Subject: Re: Validating with Haddock | | On 28/12/13 16:53, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote: | > Greetings, | > | > I'm trying to validate HEAD and I care that Haddock is built alongside | > it (so --no-haddock is not an option). I get the following errors | > listed at the bottom of this e-mail. How can I validate so that it all | builds? | > | > From what I understand, to validate I should: | > * Have a stable compiler in my PATH (7.6.3) | > * go to top level directory | > * run 'sh validate' | > | > Am I missing steps? | > | > == Start post-build package check | > Timestamp 2013-12-28 05:00:55 UTC for | > /home/shana/.ghc/i386-linux-7.7.20131227/package.conf.d/package.cache | > Timestamp 2013-12-28 05:00:55 UTC for | > /home/shana/.ghc/i386-linux-7.7.20131227/package.conf.d (same as | > cache) using cache: | > /home/shana/.ghc/i386-linux-7.7.20131227/package.conf.d/package.cache | > Timestamp 2013-12-28 05:22:27 UTC for | > /home/shana/programming/ghc/inplace/lib/package.conf.d/package.cache | > Timestamp 2013-12-28 05:22:27 UTC for | > /home/shana/programming/ghc/inplace/lib/package.conf.d (same as cache) | > using cache: | > /home/shana/programming/ghc/inplace/lib/package.conf.d/package.cache | > There are problems in package xhtml-3000.2.1: | > dependency "base-4.7.0.0-578628bf142f9304d05ce5581b5f8d76" doesn't | > exist There are problems in package ghc-paths-0.1.0.9: | > dependency "base-4.7.0.0-578628bf142f9304d05ce5581b5f8d76" doesn't | > exist | > | > The following packages are broken, either because they have a problem | > listed above, or because they depend on a broken package. | > xhtml-3000.2.1 | > ghc-paths-0.1.0.9 | > | | Ping. I need GHC to validate. Here's what I'm trying to achieve: as you | might know, I worked on Haddock over summer, rewriting the whole parser, | adding tests, fixing bugs, adding features. As Haddock ships with GHC | however (and is technically a GHC HQ package), we can not merge it | without making sure that GHC can build and validate with the changes. | | This has been a problem for me and Simon Hengel for quite a while. We | now have a branch with preliminary changes on | https://github.com/sol/haddock/tree/new-parser . We can not even begin | to try to merge the new features if the parser they are built upon is | not merged. With the recent calls to push out a 7.8 release candidate, I | think we're running out of time to get this in (or is it too late | already?). It is not the first time we've been asking for help here! | | Can someone say what are the steps I should take to get an OK from the | GHC HQ that we can push new-parser onto master? If we miss 7.8, the next | opportunity will be 7.10, because to get a new Haddock version you also | need a new compiler, which people only get during stable releases. | There's still a lot of work to be done on Haddock and I think it's | understandable that I don't want to do work on what effectively is an | 'outdated version'. I'm fine with changes being rejected because they | are deemed not good enough for some specific reason, but I'd hate the | changes to not make it because I can't get a confirmation from GHC HQ | that it's safe to do so. | | Thanks, hope to hear from someone soon. | | -- | Mateusz K. | _______________________________________________ | ghc-devs mailing list | ghc-devs@haskell.org | http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs