Re: Gnome core documentation builds

[Dan Mueth <d-mueth uchicago edu>]

It looks like a few of the docs slipped through the cracks when I replaced
applet-docs.make and app-docs.make with sgmldocs.make.  Let's move those 5
over to using sgmldocs.make and then cvs remove the two old .make files.

Note that this may require you to move the figures into a 'figures'
directory if they aren't already placed there, to keep things sane.  When
you do this, make sure you update the sgml file so it links to their new
location.

Malcolm - Thanks for the help.  Tell me if you need a hand.

Dan


On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:

> I've spent the last couple of days looking at the build process for
> gnome-core as it currently is in CVS. There's a fair bit of history
> (some might say "cruft") in there.
>
> One issue was that a recent documentation translation checking broke the
> build (why people don't check these things is beyond me, but that's a
> rant for another day). In the process of fixing that, I realised that
> there are currently three different ways to set up the Makefile.am for
> building documentation inside gnome-core.
>
> The three main makefile prototypes are applet-docs.make, app-docs.make
> and sgmldocs.make. It looks like the last one is the most recent and
> some attempts are being made to use this across the board. Currently the
> usage numbers are as follows:
>
> applet-docs.make:	used by two applet help files.
> app-docs.make:		used by three gnome-terminal translations.
> sgmldocs.make:		used by 36 help files (applets and others)
>
> Can anybody think of a good reason for me not to go through and
> rationalise all these to use sgmldocs.make (all three do basically the
> same things, so we're not sacrificing functionality)? The current lack
> of neatness annoys me, but it's more than just a cosmetic issue. The
> build problem i mentioned above could have been partially avoided if
> there was only a single Makefile.am template to copy, rather than a
> choice of three to copy and mess up.
>
> Dan (Mueth): I guess this is your call, since you seem to be the person
> doing the most doc commits in this module (Jacob Berkman tells me that
> doc commits don't require his approval to gnome-core).
>
> Thoughts anybody?
>
> Cheers,
> Malcolm
>
>