On 05/04/14 21:34, Matthias Kilian wrote:
[about haddock and ghc-paths]
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 05:43:43PM +0100, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
Perhaps the old build isn't nearly as "hermetic" as I thought it was, and new one more so. It is also possible that GHC might have previously shipped with ghc-paths?
I don't think it every did ship with ghc-paths, at least I can't think of a reason why it would.
AFAIK, ghc-paths always was separate from haddock and ghc, it's kind of a hack to provide default paths (of ghc, ghc-pkg, library and documentation directories) used by haddock.
BTW: I already thought about amending haddock with a little autoconf (or similar) goo to get rid of ghc-paths... maybe I finally do this during our current OpenBSD release cycle (which means I would have a patch ready shortly *after* the release of HP 2014.2.0.0).
In any case, if you do require that you build Haddock yourself, adding ghc-paths to the platform should be no problem. It's pretty simple although I can't vouch for its suitability in the platform.
If only the haddock executable (not the libary) is to be included within the platform, wouldn't ghc-paths be a build-only dependency? This was at least still the case for haddock-2.13.2.
Or did I miss some important change?
Ciao, Kili
No, you're correct that it's only a build-time dependency. Nothing changed from 2.13.2 in this aspect of things, I spoke a bit too soon when speculating about ghc-paths being added to HP. -- Mateusz K.