Re: Gearing up (again) for the next release: 2014.2.0.0

On 05/04/14 17:34, Mark Lentczner wrote:

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:

...

There's an if clause in the Cabal file. If we're in the GHC tree when building, we set a symbol and then Haddock knows where to look for the libs. If we aren't, *then* we require ghc-paths.

AFAICT it has been this way since 2008.

Curious! I never had a problem building haddock as part of the platform before, but in the new build, I ran across the need for ghc-paths.

Perhaps it was already installed on the machine.

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. 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. My overall advice is that you simply use the Haddock that ships with GHC: at the moment, the Haddock that is planned to ship has close to every new feature we had so there should be no reason to build one yourself.

- Mark

-- Mateusz K.