Validating with Haddock

Tue Jan 7 09:33:33 UTC 2014

I get a different bunch of "post-build package check" complaints.  Does anyone else have a clue what is going on? I do not.

Mine are reproduced below. They appear to be non-fatal warnings.  I bet it's because I have HADDOCK_DOCS=NO, but if so that should surely suppress all these warnings?

It would be great if someone could figure out what the post-build package check is doing and why it isn't working for Mateusz.

Simon

== Start post-testsuite package check
Timestamp Mon Jan  6 17:45:05 GMT 2014 for /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/inplace/lib/package.conf.d/package.cache
Timestamp Mon Jan  6 17:45:05 GMT 2014 for /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/inplace/lib/package.conf.d (same as cache)
using cache: /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/inplace/lib/package.conf.d/package.cache
Warning: haddock-interfaces: /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/libraries/dph/dph-lifted-vseg/dist-install/doc/html/dph-lifted-vseg/dph-lifted-vseg.haddock doesn't exist or isn't a file
Warning: haddock-interfaces: /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/libraries/dph/dph-lifted-copy/dist-install/doc/html/dph-lifted-copy/dph-lifted-copy.haddock doesn't exist or isn't a file
Warning: haddock-interfaces: /5playpen/simonpj/HEAD-2/libraries/dph/dph-lifted-boxed/dist-install/doc/html/dph-lifted-boxed/dph-lifted-boxed.haddock doesn't exist or isn't a file
...etc

| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of
| Mateusz Kowalczyk
| Sent: 07 January 2014 03:13
| To: ghc-devs at haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Validating with Haddock
| 
| 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
| http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs