On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:04:31AM +0000, Adrian Hey wrote:
So is that what's going wrong with packages that aren't haddocked?
Often they just haven't been processed yet. It's not yet a fully automated process, though that is the aim. There's an extra delay at the moment because I'm switching it to the new version of haddock, and have struck a few glitches that I'll post about shortly. (COrdering and AvlTree are fine, though.)
I guess if some dependencies are missing this might be the case.
At present Cabal has no way to specify a dependency on a foreign library, so that could cause a build failure, but the docs can still be generated. However if a package can't be built, it can't be installed, and any packages that depend on it cannot be configured, so no docs for those.
I'm just trying to find out if lack of haddock is deliberate policy, or a problem with hackage, or cabal, or uploaded packages or what, and what (if anything) package authors can do to get their packages properly documented in hackage.
No deliberate policy, and nothing you should or can do. The docs will appear shortly.
But in 99% of cases people will have checked this before they upload, so I don't think this can be what's going wrong.
You'd think people would check this before releasing, but 99% is an overestimate.