[Haskell-cafe] No fish, please

[Daniel Fischer]

On Thursday 19 May 2011 20:27:16, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> >> This is basically the reason I asked. Currently Cabal assumes that
> >> Haddock is the only tool of its kind. If somebody built a better
> >> Haddock, you wouldn't be able to use it. (Unless you named the
> >> executable "haddock" and made it accept the same command options.)
> > 
> > Or maybe support for that tool would be integrated into Cabal and
> > cabal and hackage.
> 
> I believe the correct approach would be to make it easy to configure
> Cabal to use any tool that might be produced one day, rather than
> integrating support for each specific tool that actually exists.
> 

Well, 'any tool that might be produced one day' is perhaps a bit much to 
ask for, but making it easier to use other tools would be a good thing. The 
problem is, how?

> 
> I thought extra-source-files: is only for Haskell source code?
> 

No, README, CHANGES, such stuff. Putting a doc-tarball there might be 
abusing it, but while there's no better option ...

> >> (It also requires you to have somewhere to host, which not
> >> everybody has.
> > 
> > Haskellwiki, bitbucket, github, ...
> 
> BitBucket only works for Mercurial, GitHub only works for Git. The

Sure, I don't spell 'perfect' that way either.

> Haskell wiki might be OK, and has the nice advantage that other people
> can improve it. (Do we think Hackage will ever get a wiki per package?)
> The other thing is, you can bet as soon as you put your package's
> documentation on the wiki and link it from the package description, the
> URL will change at some point, breaking the link.
> 
> > Sure, a centralised documentation-hosting would have advantages over
> > sprinkling over all the free project-hosting services, but the
> > situation is not unbearably dire as is.
> 
> Granted. I'm just saying how it could be better.

Agreed.