[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 15:07:39 +0100 |
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 02:34 PM, Helge Hess wrote:
Adam Fedor wrote:
Nicola Pero wrote:
I'd like to propose to make autogsdoc a separate package from
gnustep-base.
Excellent idea, IMHO! Only pros:
- code size of gstep-base is reduced
Net code size increased (as Adam pointed out ... more to maintain).
- more easy to use as a separate tool with lF&Cocoa
I don't think this would be the case ... for usability with lF and
Cocoa
you would need someone to support it for those systems, and would
need to build and install the additions library from gstep-base.
No reason why that should be simpler as a separate package
as far as I can see.
- independend versioning
Am not sure what you mean by this or why it should be considered
a good thing.
It has nothing to do with gnustep-base actually, as it's a completely
independent documentation tool.
Yes, it would be very nice to have autodoc separate for use with
libFoundation and Cocoa.
Yes, but it's hard enough to get people to write/read the
documentation as it is. Requiring a separate package would make it
harder (plus I'd have to maintain a separate package as well
(relases,etc)).
Well, an end-user certainly doesn't generate the documentation himself
(at least he shouldn't be required to do so). Also documentation
itself should be a separate package, IMHO (eg I almost never install
documentation packages, but rather prefer to look at web docs).
The purpose of autogsdoc is for the developer (not the end user, but
someone
who fixes bugs in and contributes to the the GNUstep codebase) to be
able to
generate and view new documentation as s/he makes changes to the source,
so that the barrier to having corrected/up-to-date documentation is
minimised.
Making them download a separate package is putting a barrier back up.
If it's useful for other purposes, that's a bonus.
- Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package, (continued)
- 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, 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