Quick Hackage question

[Adrian Hey]

Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 09:32 +0000, Adrian Hey wrote:
>> Judah Jacobson wrote:
>>> That makes sense; but if the packages aren't built on the server, will
>>> we still be able to display the Haddock docs?
>> Presumably it doesn't have to do a full build just to generate the 
>> Haddock, which is the immediate problem. Users can't tell much about
>> a package without this.
> 
> That's right. All it needs is to be able to configure.

So is that what's going wrong with packages that aren't haddocked?

I guess if some dependencies are missing this might be the case.
Maybe a cabal mod would be possible to still enable building
of haddock.

or just run haddock some other way?

or just upload haddock separately, as Judah suggests?
(not so keen on this option as it may contain even more broken links).

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.

>> Is it just errors being thrown by Haddock that's stopping this?
>> If so, it seems to me that obvious solution is just to link to
>> whatever html haddock generated, regardless.
> 
> Haddock generates nothing if there are parse errors in the markup.

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.

Thanks
--
Adrian Hey