Validating with Haddock

[Carter Schonwald]

Well said points.
1) perhaps opening a ticket on ghc trac for your problem is a good next
step. That way folks who are better at reading trac than email can help!
2) if the pattern synonyms branch gets merged in, you'll have to upstream
the associated changes to haddock too right?

On Monday, January 6, 2014, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:

> On 28/12/13 16:53, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I'm trying to validate HEAD and I care that Haddock is built alongside
> > it (so --no-haddock is not an option). I get the following errors listed
> > at the bottom of this e-mail. How can I validate so that it all builds?
> >
> > From what I understand, to validate I should:
> > * Have a stable compiler in my PATH (7.6.3)
> > * go to top level directory
> > * run ‘sh validate’
> >
> > Am I missing steps?
> >
> > == Start post-build package check
> > Timestamp 2013-12-28 05:00:55 UTC for
> > /home/shana/.ghc/i386-linux-7.7.20131227/package.conf.d/package.cache
> > Timestamp 2013-12-28 05:00:55 UTC for
> > /home/shana/.ghc/i386-linux-7.7.20131227/package.conf.d (same as cache)
> > using cache:
> > /home/shana/.ghc/i386-linux-7.7.20131227/package.conf.d/package.cache
> > Timestamp 2013-12-28 05:22:27 UTC for
> > /home/shana/programming/ghc/inplace/lib/package.conf.d/package.cache
> > Timestamp 2013-12-28 05:22:27 UTC for
> > /home/shana/programming/ghc/inplace/lib/package.conf.d (same as cache)
> > using cache:
> > /home/shana/programming/ghc/inplace/lib/package.conf.d/package.cache
> > There are problems in package xhtml-3000.2.1:
> >   dependency "base-4.7.0.0-578628bf142f9304d05ce5581b5f8d76" doesn't
> exist
> > There are problems in package ghc-paths-0.1.0.9:
> >   dependency "base-4.7.0.0-578628bf142f9304d05ce5581b5f8d76" doesn't
> exist
> >
> > The following packages are broken, either because they have a problem
> > listed above, or because they depend on a broken package.
> > xhtml-3000.2.1
> > ghc-paths-0.1.0.9
> >
>
> Ping. I need GHC to validate. Here's what I'm trying to achieve: as you
> might know, I worked on Haddock over summer, rewriting the whole parser,
> adding tests, fixing bugs, adding features. As Haddock ships with GHC
> however (and is technically a GHC HQ package), we can not merge it
> without making sure that GHC can build and validate with the changes.
>
> This has been a problem for me and Simon Hengel for quite a while. We
> now have a branch with preliminary changes on
> https://github.com/sol/haddock/tree/new-parser . We can not even begin
> to try to merge the new features if the parser they are built upon is
> not merged. With the recent calls to push out a 7.8 release candidate, I
> think we're running out of time to get this in (or is it too late
> already?). It is not the first time we've been asking for help here!
>
> Can someone say what are the steps I should take to get an OK from the
> GHC HQ that we can push new-parser onto master? If we miss 7.8, the next
> opportunity will be 7.10, because to get a new Haddock version you also
> need a new compiler, which people only get during stable releases.
> There's still a lot of work to be done on Haddock and I think it's
> understandable that I don't want to do work on what effectively is an
> ‘outdated version’. I'm fine with changes being rejected because they
> are deemed not good enough for some specific reason, but I'd hate the
> changes to not make it because I can't get a confirmation from GHC HQ
> that it's safe to do so.
>
> Thanks, hope to hear from someone soon.
>
> --
> Mateusz K.
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org <javascript:;>
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20140106/57bec7fa/attachment-0001.html>