should URLs contain package keys (instead of names)?

ktvoelker / standalone-haddock

Generate standalone haddock documentation for a set of packages

MIT License

27 stars 20 forks source link

should URLs contain package keys (instead of names)? #11

Open jwaldmann opened 9 years ago

jwaldmann commented 9 years ago

I am cross-referencing this discussion https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10311 which refers to my use case http://nfa.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=382

I am not sure what would be the right thing to do, and whether it should involve changes in my application, ghc, haddock, or standalone-haddock.

ktvoelker commented 7 years ago

I suspect that this would not involve changes in standalone-haddock, because it doesn't really generate any HTML; it's just a wrapper around the tools that do.

jwaldmann commented 7 years ago

The name-mangling problem is sort-of-solved in ghc-8 ( https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/10311#comment:11 )

I am using stack haddock (instead of standalone-haddock) now, which seems to do an OK job building relocatable docs for a set of cabal packages.