[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:47:40 +0100 |
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 11:24 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
We still haven't agreed on whether to build the Documentation in the
libraries by default either.
The only argument I'm aware of for not building/installing the
documentation by default (other
than the argument from personal taste of course) is that it'
error-prone and looks bad if it
goes wrong.
Building documentation simply doesn't work on my system.
How about some bug reports to indicate exactly what is going wrong?
Normally you are very good about bug reports and fixes.
When I type 'make', then 'make install', autogsdoc is run during 'make
install'. This is plainly wrong, and causes 'make install' to be
unreasonably slow and often/consistently fail on my systems. Which is
why
I always turn off generating documentation.
1. I don't know why it should fail ... but again that's a reason for as
bug
report and a fix.
2. If it's run unnecessarily (and I think it probably is), that's a bug
in the
makefiles package, and again we should fix it. Probably just a case of
having make check all the source/headers against a timestamp of the
last run of document generation.
And I think this should be the default for newbies - they have enough
problems already installing gnustep. Give them easy/quick compilation
and
installation of libraries, and pregenerated documentation.
Yes ... isn't that what we are aiming to do? I thought that the
distributions
now contained pre-built documentation (not an issue that I'm familiar
with
as I use CVS of course). If that's not the case, we probably need
makefile
support for doing it ...
When we discuss building documentation by default, I assume that's for
developers ... if you aren't a developer, you don't change the source
code,
and documentation should therefore not be regenerated (unless the make
code is a bit broken as suggested above).
Documentation does not need to be compiled specifically for the target
machine - you can compile it once and distribute it in html for
everyone
else. Why making life more difficult for new people. The difficulty
of
installing gnustep scares off many people. Let's try to keep that to a
minimum.
I don't *think* that's the issue ... on the basis of this email, it
sounds like
I agree with you entirely on this ... and I'm not sure that *anyone*
disagrees.
- Making autogsdoc a separate package, Nicola Pero, 2003/07/21
- Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package, Adam Fedor, 2003/07/21
- Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2003/07/22
- Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package, Nicola Pero, 2003/07/22
- Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package,
Richard Frith-Macdonald <=
- Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2003/07/22
- Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package, Nicola Pero, 2003/07/22
- Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2003/07/22
- Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package, Adam Fedor, 2003/07/22
Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package, Nicola Pero, 2003/07/22
Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package, Helge Hess, 2003/07/22