headers
Alfonso Acosta | 30 Sep 18:55

HackageDB bug in exposed modules

Hi,

I just uploaded a library to hackagedb:
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/ForSyDe

Everything went smoothly, but the webpage shows certain hidden modules
(other-modules section in the cabal description) as exposed.

Am I missing something or is this a bug in HackageDB?

Best regards,

Alfonso Acosta
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Duncan Coutts | 30 Sep 19:18
Gravatar

Re: HackageDB bug in exposed modules

On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 18:59 +0200, Alfonso Acosta wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I just uploaded a library to hackagedb:
> http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/ForSyDe
> 
> Everything went smoothly, but the webpage shows certain hidden modules
> (other-modules section in the cabal description) as exposed.
> 
> Am I missing something or is this a bug in HackageDB?

I think I must be missing something. Looking at the page currently and
comparing it to the .cabal file, the page lists only the exposed modules
and not the other modules.

BTW, you may be pleased to know that the latest version of Cabal lets
you use (a restricted form of) wildcards in the extra-source-files
field.

Duncan
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Alfonso Acosta | 30 Sep 19:39

Re: HackageDB bug in exposed modules

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Duncan Coutts
<duncan.coutts <at> worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> I think I must be missing something. Looking at the page currently and
> comparing it to the .cabal file, the page lists only the exposed modules
> and not the other modules.

My bad, I was the one missing something, sorry for the noise.

Everything makes sense now, the bug was just in my head.

>
> BTW, you may be pleased to know that the latest version of Cabal lets
> you use (a restricted form of) wildcards in the extra-source-files
> field.

Great! When will we see a doc-files category?
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Alfonso Acosta | 30 Sep 19:45

Re: HackageDB bug in exposed modules

BTW, can someone tell me how long does HackageDB normally take to
compile the uploaded packages and generate the haddock documentation?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Alfonso Acosta
<alfonso.acosta <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Duncan Coutts
> <duncan.coutts <at> worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I think I must be missing something. Looking at the page currently and
>> comparing it to the .cabal file, the page lists only the exposed modules
>> and not the other modules.
>
> My bad, I was the one missing something, sorry for the noise.
>
> Everything makes sense now, the bug was just in my head.
>
>>
>> BTW, you may be pleased to know that the latest version of Cabal lets
>> you use (a restricted form of) wildcards in the extra-source-files
>> field.
>
> Great! When will we see a doc-files category?
>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Duncan Coutts | 30 Sep 20:40
Gravatar

Re: HackageDB bug in exposed modules

On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 19:45 +0200, Alfonso Acosta wrote:
> BTW, can someone tell me how long does HackageDB normally take to
> compile the uploaded packages and generate the haddock documentation?

It's normally on the order of a few hours. I'm afraid I do not know
exactly.

Duncan
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Alfonso Acosta | 1 Oct 11:06

Re: HackageDB bug in exposed modules

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Duncan Coutts
<duncan.coutts <at> worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 19:45 +0200, Alfonso Acosta wrote:
>> BTW, can someone tell me how long does HackageDB normally take to
>> compile the uploaded packages and generate the haddock documentation?
>
> It's normally on the order of a few hours. I'm afraid I do not know
> exactly.

I'm just asking because I uploaded this package 4 days ago and it
still doesn't show the haddock documentation
http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/parameterized-data-0.1.3

There is no rush, I'm just trying to understand how the compilation of
packages works HackageDB (I uploaded some other packages after that
one and their haddock documentation is ready)
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ross Paterson | 3 Oct 13:38
Favicon

Re: HackageDB bug in exposed modules

On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 11:06:54AM +0200, Alfonso Acosta wrote:
> I'm just asking because I uploaded this package 4 days ago and it
> still doesn't show the haddock documentation
> http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/parameterized-data-0.1.3
> 
> There is no rush, I'm just trying to understand how the compilation of
> packages works HackageDB (I uploaded some other packages after that
> one and their haddock documentation is ready)

I was specifically excluding type-level and parameterized-data for some
reason that I can't remember.  So I've stopped.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Alfonso Acosta | 3 Oct 16:55

Re: HackageDB bug in exposed modules

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Ross Paterson <ross <at> soi.city.ac.uk> wrote:
> I was specifically excluding type-level and parameterized-data for some
> reason that I can't remember.  So I've stopped.

Thanks.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Duncan Coutts | 30 Sep 20:39
Gravatar

Re: HackageDB bug in exposed modules

On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 19:39 +0200, Alfonso Acosta wrote:

> > BTW, you may be pleased to know that the latest version of Cabal lets
> > you use (a restricted form of) wildcards in the extra-source-files
> > field.
> 
> Great! When will we see a doc-files category?

When people can agree on some conventions on how to build various
formats of documentation. We have all these easy conventions for source
code; we pretty much know how to build a .hs file without needing custom
build rules for every package. For documentation however there is much
less consensus or common convention. What do I do with a .xml file? Is
it xhtml, or do I need to do something obscure with docbook?

This would be an excellent area for someone to take charge, look at the
current common uses and see if there is a way of making the common
simple stuff easy.

Duncan
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane