Re: Doxygen - another sample, preliminary comments

[Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>]

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 10:26:01PM -0800, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> 
> It's my strong preference to have a docs directory with all the HTML and
> .texi files included in the distribution by default. For whatever reason,
> it looks like a copy of the HTML files will be living outside the main
> source tree. This is ok, but I really want to have active HTML
> documentation within the source directory.

Every method I can think of keeping the two copies in sync is just ugly.


[ reasoning ]
> I'd like to see this trend continue. 

I like it too.  It may be that we just have to edit both ChangeLogs at
the same time, or something.  (more ugliness)


> This preference is born out of g++'s nearly-always out of date configure
> options documentation.

...wondered if i was the only one who gets annoyed with that...


> Continuing in this ranting mode, I'd also like to see the doxygen bits
> live inside a docs subdir, and not necessarily a configure-time
> option. I'd rather see a special makefile rule to build the enhanced
> documentation than a configure time option. Let's face it: re-configuring
> for documentation, even 'enhanced documentation'  is a complete nightmare.
> 
> People who then want the enhanced documentation can build
> it: people who don't care don't have to waste cycles generating it. 

"make doxy"?  All we'd need to do is test that a doxygen binary is available
somewhere, and of a sufficiently recent version.  Rich, what version are
we using?

Phil


-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.