From: <msj...@gm...> - 2004-08-15 19:06:40
|
Sorry for all the spamming. :-) I can't seem to be able to build the docs properly in 0.9.6. In 0.9.5 it works just fine, but when I try it in 0.9.6, I get lots and lots of errors on the form compiling module Window: ../gtk/display/AccelLabel.hs(48): withCurModule: there is no such module ../gtk/display/AccelLabel.hs(49): withCurModule: there is no such module and all the files I get in the doc/GTK directory are index.html and rn01.html. :-( So... what's up? What changed? For both 0.9.5 and 0.9.6 I ran ./configure \ --with-catalog=/etc/xml/catalog \ --with-html=/usr/share/xml/docbook/stylesheet/nwalsh/xhtml/chunk.xsl and then simply 'make' I can provide a more complete build log if that's any help. /Martin |
From: Jens P. <pet...@ha...> - 2004-08-16 02:47:18
|
Martin Sjögren wrote: > I can't seem to be able to build the docs properly in 0.9.6. In 0.9.5 > it works just fine, but when I try it in 0.9.6, I get lots and lots of > errors on the form > > compiling module Window: > ../gtk/display/AccelLabel.hs(48): > withCurModule: there is no such module > ../gtk/display/AccelLabel.hs(49): > withCurModule: there is no such module > > and all the files I get in the doc/GTK directory are index.html and > rn01.html. :-( The documentation for gtk has been converted by Duncan to use haddock, but the Makefile files haven't been updated yet to reflect this... It is on my todo list, hopefully I'll find time for it this week unless someone gets to it before me. :) Jens |
From: Axel S. <A....@ke...> - 2004-08-16 07:40:13
|
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:47:14AM +0900, Jens Petersen wrote: > >and all the files I get in the doc/GTK directory are index.html and > >rn01.html. :-( > > The documentation for gtk has been converted by Duncan to use > haddock, but the Makefile files haven't been updated yet to reflect > this... It is on my todo list, hopefully I'll find time for it this > week unless someone gets to it before me. :) Uhm. I've never worked with haddock so far so I'll leave that to you. But if you tell me what needs to be run how then I'll be happy to help with the Makefiles. Axel. |
From: Duncan C. <dun...@wo...> - 2004-08-16 15:35:40
|
In message <200...@my...> Axel Simon <A....@ke...> writes: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:47:14AM +0900, Jens Petersen wrote: > > The documentation for gtk has been converted by Duncan to use > > haddock, but the Makefile files haven't been updated yet to reflect > > this... It is on my todo list, hopefully I'll find time for it this > > week unless someone gets to it before me. :) > > Uhm. I've never worked with haddock so far so I'll leave that to you. But if > you tell me what needs to be run how then I'll be happy to help with the > Makefiles. Duncan (who is currently at a conference in Estonia) says... I gave a brief description of what I have been doing myself http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=9160042 There is also the haddock docs as a good reference http://www.haskell.org/haddock/docs/invoking.html Duncan |
From: Axel S. <A....@ke...> - 2004-08-16 07:50:05
|
Martin, it would be great if you would provide Debian packages. I replaced the tar ball on the web-page with one that has the cleaning patches incorporated. Cheers, Axel. |
From: Duncan C. <dun...@wo...> - 2004-08-16 15:41:33
|
In message <200...@my...> Axel Simon <A....@ke...> writes: > Martin, > > it would be great if you would provide Debian packages. I replaced the tar > ball on the web-page with one that has the cleaning patches incorporated. If Marting does not feel like it I could ask Ian Lynagh (http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/ian.lynagh/) to do it. He is just finnishing packaging ghc for Debian on all archs (including wierd IBM machines) and is looking around for more libs to package. Duncan |
From: <msj...@gm...> - 2004-08-16 16:48:12
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:41:31 +0100 (BST), Duncan Coutts <dun...@wo...> wrote: > In message <200...@my...> Axel Simon <A....@ke...> writes: > > Martin, > > > > it would be great if you would provide Debian packages. I replaced the tar > > ball on the web-page with one that has the cleaning patches incorporated. > > If Marting does not feel like it I could ask Ian Lynagh (http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/ian.lynagh/) to do it. He is just finnishing packaging ghc for Debian on all archs (including wierd IBM machines) and is looking around for more libs to package. Oh I have every intention of putting gtk2hs in Debian unstable, that's sort of why I picked it up. I'm already working closely with both Ian and Isaac Jones, figuring out the best way to package haskell libraries in Debian (and I can tell you this, it isn't trivial :) Right now I'm pondering if it's worth the effort putting all the gtk2hs ghc-packages in different binary packages, or if I should just put them in the same package. Speaking of Isaac, have you guys looked at Cabal (http://www.haskell.org/cabal/)? It might be interesting to merge the gtk2hs mk/* build system with Cabal's (extraordinarily primitive, so far) Distribution.Make system. /Martin |
From: Axel S. <A....@ke...> - 2004-08-17 07:28:26
|
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 06:46:40PM +0200, Martin Sjgren wrote: > Right now I'm pondering if it's worth the effort putting all the > gtk2hs ghc-packages in different binary packages, or if I should just > put them in the same package. > > Speaking of Isaac, have you guys looked at Cabal > (http://www.haskell.org/cabal/)? It might be interesting to merge the > gtk2hs mk/* build system with Cabal's (extraordinarily primitive, so > far) Distribution.Make system. It certainly sounds like a good idea. The question is whether Cabal is already up for the job. I abandonned changing everything to autoconf because ghc --make and c2hs do not obey normal makefile rules, so it'd be interesting to see how Cabal would perform. Axel. |
From: Jens P. <je...@ju...> - 2004-08-17 12:01:29
|
Martin Sjögren wrote: > Right now I'm pondering if it's worth the effort putting all the > gtk2hs ghc-packages in different binary packages, or if I should just > put them in the same package. FWIW for my rpm builds my spec file (haven't gotten round to merge it into cvs yet) currently makes the following subpackages: gtk2hs-doc gtk2hs-gconf-ghc6.2.1 gtk2hs-ghc6.2.1 (this is the main package with Gtk and Mogul modules) gtk2hs-glade-ghc6.2.1 gtk2hs-sourceview-ghc6.2.1 I decided to do this mainly for dependency reasons - eg so that you don't need to install gtksourceview if you only want to use the Gtk module say. I guess debian will be using a different naming scheme for the ghc6 dependency - I'm not overly keen on -ghc6.2.1 myself but it seems the best way to allow multiple gtk2hs packages to be installed for different (ABI incompatible) versions of ghc. Jens |
From: <msj...@gm...> - 2004-08-18 00:14:10
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:49:34 +0900, Jens Petersen <je...@ju...> wr= ote: > Martin Sj=F6gren wrote: > > Right now I'm pondering if it's worth the effort putting all the > > gtk2hs ghc-packages in different binary packages, or if I should just > > put them in the same package. >=20 > FWIW for my rpm builds my spec file (haven't gotten round to merge it > into cvs yet) currently makes the following subpackages: >=20 > gtk2hs-doc > gtk2hs-gconf-ghc6.2.1 > gtk2hs-ghc6.2.1 (this is the main package with Gtk and Mogul modules) > gtk2hs-glade-ghc6.2.1 > gtk2hs-sourceview-ghc6.2.1 >=20 > I decided to do this mainly for dependency reasons - eg so that > you don't need to install gtksourceview if you only want to use > the Gtk module say. >=20 > I guess debian will be using a different naming scheme for > the ghc6 dependency - I'm not overly keen on -ghc6.2.1 myself > but it seems the best way to allow multiple gtk2hs packages > to be installed for different (ABI incompatible) versions of ghc. Our current approach when packaging the ghc package 'foo' is to call the package libghc6-foo-dev and use tight dependencies to take care of the ABI problems. The question is whether I should put the mogul library in its own package as well, since the sourceview/glade/gconf packages technically do not need it to work, but it may be more trouble than it's worth. :) /Martin |