On Thursday 19 May 2011 20:27:16, Andrew Coppin wrote:
This is basically the reason I asked. Currently Cabal assumes that Haddock is the only tool of its kind. If somebody built a better Haddock, you wouldn't be able to use it. (Unless you named the executable "haddock" and made it accept the same command options.)
Or maybe support for that tool would be integrated into Cabal and cabal and hackage.
I believe the correct approach would be to make it easy to configure Cabal to use any tool that might be produced one day, rather than integrating support for each specific tool that actually exists.
Well, 'any tool that might be produced one day' is perhaps a bit much to ask for, but making it easier to use other tools would be a good thing. The problem is, how?
I thought extra-source-files: is only for Haskell source code?
No, README, CHANGES, such stuff. Putting a doc-tarball there might be abusing it, but while there's no better option ...
(It also requires you to have somewhere to host, which not everybody has.
Haskellwiki, bitbucket, github, ...
BitBucket only works for Mercurial, GitHub only works for Git. The
Sure, I don't spell 'perfect' that way either.
Haskell wiki might be OK, and has the nice advantage that other people can improve it. (Do we think Hackage will ever get a wiki per package?) The other thing is, you can bet as soon as you put your package's documentation on the wiki and link it from the package description, the URL will change at some point, breaking the link.
Sure, a centralised documentation-hosting would have advantages over sprinkling over all the free project-hosting services, but the situation is not unbearably dire as is.
Granted. I'm just saying how it could be better.
Agreed.