Hackage Haddock fails where local succeeds

Hi folks, Over at http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/MissingH/1.0.1.2/logs/failure/gh... the build has failed in the Hackage step with this output: src/Data/BinPacking.hs:78:32: parse error on input `-- ^ The sizes of bins' haddock: Failed to check module: Data.BinPacking That section of code looks like this: {- | The primary type for bin-packing functions. These functions take a list of size of bins. If every bin is the same size, you can pass @(repeat binSize)@ to pass an infinite list of bins if the same size. Any surplus bins will simply be ignored. -} type BinPacker = (Num size, Ord size, Show size, Show obj) => [size] -- ^ The sizes of bins -> [(size, obj)] -- ^ The sizes and objects -> Either (BinPackerError size obj) [[(size, obj)]] -- ^ Either error or results (the last line got artificially wrapped in my mail client) My local haddock, 0.8, parses this file fine. Is Hackage running and older version? Could it be upgraded? Or is there something else going on here? -- John

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 06:45:40AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
My local haddock, 0.8, parses this file fine. Is Hackage running and older version? Could it be upgraded? Or is there something else going on here?
No, it's running haddock 2.1.0, which understands all the GHC extensions, but is more picky about comments.

On Thu April 17 2008 7:01:18 am Ross Paterson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 06:45:40AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
My local haddock, 0.8, parses this file fine. Is Hackage running and older version? Could it be upgraded? Or is there something else going on here?
No, it's running haddock 2.1.0, which understands all the GHC extensions, but is more picky about comments.
OK. I have been able to replicate this behavior with Haddock 2.0.0.0, which is the latest according to www.haskell.org/haddock. Where did 2.1.0 come from? Although I can replicate the behavior, I can't explain it. My reading of the Haddock docs leads me to believe I have done the correct thing. Is this a bug in Haddock or am I missing something? Is there some different syntax for a "type" declaration that defines an alias for a function? -- John
participants (2)
-
John Goerzen
-
Ross Paterson