Re: [BUG?] Issues in recent doc switch for gnome-panel

[danilo gnome org (Danilo Šegan)]

Hi Luca,

Today at 8:12, Luca Ferretti wrote:

> Using g-d-u 0.3.2 if you don't declare DOC_FIGURES in Makefile.am images
> will be ignored. This variable needs the 'full relative' path to all
> images you want to install. See following reduced installation logs

Shaun already fixed this problem: he called "install-figs" only if
DOC_FIGURES was declared, so even if they would be installed by
running "make install-figs" manually, there was a small problem that
this target was not even called.  Naughty, naughty Shaun!

>      1. Add "DOC_FIGURES = figures/clocl_applet.png" to Makefile.am and
>         regenerate Makefile

>      1. Add "DOC_FIGURES = figures/window_list_applet.png
>         figures/window_list_group_applet.png" to Makefile.am and
>         regenerate Makefile

These workarounds should not be needed anymore with CVS g-d-u.

> ### Fish ###
>
>      1. Add "DOC_FIGURES = fish_applet.png" to Makefile.am and
>         regenerate Makefile
>      2. Note the missing figures/ directory in previous declaration

You're expecting too much.  I mean, it's not hard to do that, but it's
kinda wrong, ya know?  Figures can also be in any other directory.

If you're suggesting that we REQUIRE everybody to use "figures"
directory, I don't see why shouldn't we instead REQUIRE everybody to
use full path to the figure, and allow pictures like
  help/C/fish_applet.png
  help/C/a11y-theme/fish_applet.png
  help/C/figures/fish_applet.png
to be different, yet used in the same document.

> IMHO the Fish example should work. As well as you declare only
> "basenamed" XML filenames in DOC_INCLUDES, I suppose the DOC_FIGURES
> should accept "basenamed" PNG filenames. And it should be the right
> synopsis.

And you do.  "Base" in this context is where $DOC_MODULE.xml resides
(i.e. help/C).  Figures can be directly inside it as well, and they
can be deeper in the hierarchy.

> Maybe a DOC_FIGURES_DIR (or DOC_FIGURES_DIRS) variable could be useful,
> if images aren't under XX/figures/ (but for example under XX/images).

IMHO, you're complicating it too much.  You can have them under
not-figures/ already, and you just need to mention them one by one.  I
agree that there's no much point in requiring it to be "figures", but
that's only a recommendation.

I mean, your suggestion is ok, but it's really not that important.  If
it was done from scratch, I'd recommend doing it, but I don't see the
value in changing it now: either make it simple for yourself by
putting all the images in "figures", or put them wherever you wish and
make it harder for yourself.

Cheers,
Danilo