Gearing up (again) for the next release: 2014.2.0.0

[Mateusz Kowalczyk]

On 05/04/14 21:34, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> [about haddock and ghc-paths]
> 
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 05:43:43PM +0100, Mateusz Kowalczyk wrote:
>>> Perhaps
>>> the old build isn't nearly as "hermetic" as I thought it was, and new one
>>> more so. It is also possible that GHC might have previously shipped with
>>> ghc-paths?
>>
>> I don't think it every did ship with ghc-paths, at least I can't think
>> of a reason why it would.
> 
> AFAIK, ghc-paths always was separate from haddock and ghc, it's
> kind of a hack to provide default paths (of ghc, ghc-pkg, library
> and documentation directories) used by haddock.
> 
> BTW: I already thought about amending haddock with a little autoconf
> (or similar) goo to get rid of ghc-paths... maybe I finally do this
> during our current OpenBSD release cycle (which means I would have
> a patch ready shortly *after* the release of HP 2014.2.0.0).
> 
>> In any case, if you do require that you build Haddock yourself, adding
>> ghc-paths to the platform should be no problem. It's pretty simple
>> although I can't vouch for its suitability in the platform.
> 
> If only the haddock executable (not the libary) is to be included
> within the platform, wouldn't ghc-paths be a build-only dependency?
> This was at least still the case for haddock-2.13.2.
> 
> Or did I miss some important change?
> 
> Ciao,
> 	Kili
> 

No, you're correct that it's only a build-time dependency. Nothing
changed from 2.13.2 in this aspect of things, I spoke a bit too soon
when speculating about ghc-paths being added to HP.

-- 
Mateusz K.