This should be placed alongside the other Haskell related ebuilds in dev-lang.
# Copyright 1999-2002 Gentoo Technologies, Inc. # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 # /space/gentoo/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/skel.ebuild,v 1.8 2002/05/30 01:54:49 sandyma c Exp DESCRIPTION="A documentation tool for Haskell" HOMEPAGE="http://www.haskell.org/haddock/" LICENSE="AS IS" DEPEND="dev-lang/ghc" SRC_URI="http://www.haskell.org/haddock/${P}-src.tar.gz" S=${WORKDIR}/${P} src_compile() { ./configure \ --prefix=/usr \ --mandir=/usr/share/man || die "./configure failed" emake || die }
Created attachment 1689 [details] ebuild script
Hi Thomas. Thanks for submission! 1. I don't think either of these tools (including in #3970) should go in dev-lang. New category should perheaps be created (dev-haskel). I'll go about it but it'll take some time to get it approved (adding a new category is considered a "major" change and thus requires approval of other developers). 1.5 At this moment I can see only 3 ebuilds that could go into it (2 from #3970 and this one). It is desirable to have somewhat larger list to warrant the category. Do you know of any other ebuilds that could go in? Are there related non-major languages, apps for which could be combined with haskell apps (to share the same category)? 2. Could you please repost the ebuild as an attachment. This plain-text posting lost all the \n's and tabs.. 3. Re #3970: I suspect there might be a name clash with one of the three haskell compilers we have in the tree. I seem to remember one of them installing hmake (all lowercase). Do you know anything about this? George
I can provide a different opinion: Ad 1. A dev-haskell category would be cool, and there certainly are more Haskell-related tools that could go into this category. Apart from the three major compilers/interpreters (ghc, nhc98, hugs), one could add tools such as Haddock (documentation), happy (parser generator), hmake (intelligent make-replacement for Haskell programs), DrIFT (tool to automatically derive class instances), lhs2tex (typesetting Haskell code with (La)TeX), Generic Haskell (language extension), Strafunski (a bundle for strategic programming), and certainly many more ... It is mainly a question of writing the ebuilds and sorting out the dependencies. I would be willing to help, as far as my time permits. Another possible category for Haddock might be dev-util, though. I think dev-util contains other language-dependent tools. Ad 3. hmake is needed and therefore installed by nhc98. I don't know right now whether it is possible to pass an option to the configure script that disables the installation of hmake. hmake could be made a separate package then. Andres
Hi Andres. Thanks for an update! Nice to see this bug alive again ;). Yes I will go about proposing the new category as soon as I collect a "crytical mass", which is normally 3 packages. Right now I have hmake and haddoc here in bugzilla, which makes for two. So as soon as I get one more from that listI'll start processing them (unless of course this happens in a pre-1.4 release week and folls on a feature freeze. I will not disclose the date, I can only say tat this looks real close now ;)). Re hmake: yes, the correct way to go would be to make hmake a separate package and modify nhc98 to build only itself and depend on hmake. I'll take a look at this as soon as I get to this topic (which will likely happen at the same point as the new category creation). Thanks for confirming that this is the same hmake (which I kind of suspected). George
Hi George. Thank you very much for the prompt answer. Sorry, I did not see #3970 (hmake/HDoc) yesterday. Could you please clarify the "critical mass" of three packages: aren't ghc, nhc98, hugs, hmake, HDoc, Haddock already more than three? Apart from that, I will provide an ebuild for Generic Haskell soon (which is developed by myself, among others). Then, I have seen you have been assigned to #11045 as well (new version of Hugs). Could that ebuild be updated independent of the category question? I know there is a new version of GHC as well, but the GHC ebuild is horribly involved and I do not know whether I can upate it -- I might try, though ... Best, Andres
Hi Andres. >the "critical mass" of three packages: aren't ghc, nhc98, hugs, hmake, HDoc, >Haddock already more than three? Well, the way it stands now, we have a dev-lang category for different languages (i.e. compilers, interpreters, etc). Then we have dev-langname categories for various tools or associated packages. Following this structure, ghc, nhc and hugs should reside in dev-lang. Though looking at how many different compilers/interpreters does haskel have it may be worth putting some of them into dev-haskel. However tree is not that many, so for now I think they should stay in dev-lang. Back to the tools: Ok, there are 3 of them already, so I have sent a proposal to create a new category. Now I will need to wait for 1 or 2 days to check if there will be any arguments against (I don't think this should happen, but that's a policy) and then I'll start processing those packages. >Then, I have seen you have been assigned to #11045 as well (new version of >Hugs). Could that ebuild be updated independent of the category question? Yes, I will, just did not get to it yet burried within some "real" bugs and older submissions.. >I know there is a new version of GHC as well, but the GHC ebuild is horribly >involved and I do not know whether I can upate it -- I might try, though ... Well, ghc is quite problematic. Versions we have in portage would not compile with gcc-3.2. Even worse, while they would compile with 2.95.3, that required *a ton* of patching to be done on them. Fortunately, I just got a report that the newvest version (5.04.2) seems to build fine. I'll check the situation and if it indeed does will create new ebuild. If you would like to help with ghc, please take a look at #6352. I'll probably update it soon. George
Created attachment 6567 [details] updated haddock ebuild This is an updated ebuild for version 0.4 of Haddock. It is very straightforward. I added support for building the Haddock documentation, similar to the way it is done in ghc-5.02.3.ebuild ... If that causes problems that I am not aware of, the doc-dependency and the two if-statements for the doc-flag can safely be removed from the ebuild. Placement in dev-lang or dev-haskell, as before.
*** Bug 12835 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I have finally added Haddock to portage, as ~x86. Closing the bug -- please test.
should be closed.
