[arch-haskell] distributing documentation

[Roman Cheplyaka]

* Don Stewart <dons at galois.com> [2008-09-07 11:06:47-0700]
> roma:
> > * Don Stewart <dons at galois.com> [2008-09-07 10:53:36-0700]
> > > roma:
> > > > I came from Debian world. One of things I like in Debian is mandatory
> > > > documentation for each package.
> > > > 
> > > > In arch there seems to be another practice -- I don't have
> > > > /usr/share/doc at all. I don't know whether arch has some policy
> > > > concerning documentation, but can't we do better at least in
> > > > arch-haskell land? I mean to include haddock docs in haskell packages.
> > > > For me it sounds abusive, that having packages installed I need to
> > > > search Internet for their documentation.
> > > 
> > > Yes, we've discussed this. I think it isn't feasible to build the
> > > haddocks *for each package*, but instead, we should have a
> > > haskell-documentation package, that downloads *all* the haddock
> > > documentation (and user's guide and ...).
> > 
> > Why isn't it? Debian does this pretty well. For each package they have
> > ${package}-doc with haddocks.
> 
> Not every package has haddocks that build, and it adds haddock as a new
> dependency to the build process.
> 
> And there's already a complete documentation tree on hackage.haskell.org
> we can use.

Ok, I agree that we can reuse built documentation from hackage. I just
don't like an idea of downloading *all* of them (and it doesn't scale).

So the script should ask user which documentation he'd like to download
(or decide automatically, by checking install packages).

Is anybody already working on this? How can I help? Any other thoughts?

-- 
Roman I. Cheplyaka :: http://ro-che.info/
kzm: My program contains a bug. How ungrateful, after all I've done for it.