Re: gnome-libs/devel-docs et al (hello, and long)

[Steve Haslam <araqnid debian org>]

On Thu, May 27, 1999 at 04:20:20PM -0500, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I'm going to start off with a bit of a moan about the
> > documentation section of gnome-libs... I just can't get it to make
> > cleanly, and once I installed the gtk-doc tools, things didn't seem to=20
> > get any better...
> 
> If you use the released tarballs, then there is no need for you to
> use/install gtk-doc at all.  Those are only used by the package
> maintainers.

However, it's been a perennial problem both for me and for the
arch-builders... Somewhere inamongst the automake structure, it tried
to use them, and I got told about it...

I'm playing with the example Makefile.am from gtk-doc, and I think it
can be improved. It may have been giving a false update-required...

> > Also, where/what is the gdoc tool? Do I want to package that up too?
> > it's referenced from the Makefile, but it's not in gtk-doc, and again
> > isn't in the tarball... I've found tools/gnome-doc which seems to
> > refer to itself as gdoc at one point, is this relevant? As far as I
> > can tell, it has to be made from c2man source...
> > 
> 
> in which makefile?

devel-docs/Makefile.am refer to "./gdoc/gdoc.pl" with appears to slurp
the output of "gdoc", which looks like it is assumed to be on the
path. However, there's no reason for these to get called unless
libgnome{,ui}.sgml disappear, so I'm not inclined to worry about them
too much.

Also, the reference information produced from libgnome.sgml and
libgnomeui.sgml at this level seem to largely duplicate the
information in the gnome/html and gnomeui/html directories- is this
really desirable?

SRH
-- 
Steve Haslam               Debian GNU/Linux               araqnid@debian.org
gnome-libs, gnome-core, gnome-control-center, gdm, p3nfs.    what, me worry?

PGP signature