Re: patch-review

[Stefan Kost <ensonic hora-obscura de>]

Hi,
Stefan Kost wrote:
> hi,
> 
> there is some stuff that I would like to get second opinions on before commiting.
> 
> = http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383456
> anyone a better idea how to call gtkdoc-check for the tests (that avoids copying)
> 
> = http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338068
> please test the tmpl-free build
> 
> = http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156643
> please comment
> 

I'll continue some generic discussion here.

= gtkdocize
I'll add a option "--flavour' to select which gtkdoc.mak to use. Flavours can be:
- legacy : the current gtkdoc.mak + the dummy rule as agreed in
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156643
- modern : the template free version from
  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338068

Regarding the latter, Yeti mentioned that we should try to radically get rid of
more cruft. If that involves more steps, should I name 'modern' 'modern-1.9' to
allow even more modern versions? Regarding the copying should I add '--force'
like in the other *ize bootstrap scripts to force overwriting the gtkdoc.mak
(even though it changes behaviour as it is overwriting by default now).

= .types file
gtkdoc-scan with --rebuild-types can recreate a types file. Problems:
* contains also the _get_types for enums (I belive gtkdoc-scanobj is now smart
enough to not introspect those).
* projects should use --ignore-headers to skip disabled modules.
* it misses the #includes - are they needed

= sections.txt file
The *-decl-list.txt should mabe be sorted so that it easier to see whats the
difference of the mainually managed one.
It does not list everything (e.g. XXXClass)

Stefan