Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 00:39:48 +0000 From: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> To: admin <admin@wtbwts.com> Cc: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org>, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: destination html files Message-ID: <20000113003947.D8876@kilt.nothing-going-on.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001030944260.17208-100000@server.b0x.com>; from admin on Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 09:53:51AM %2B0000 References: <20000102194131.B37040@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10001030944260.17208-100000@server.b0x.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 09:53:51AM +0000, admin wrote:
> > > Now that's not right, is it? The html file is in the book.sgml directory
> > > whereas the image is in the chapter directory.
> >
> ...
> > The "all" target would be responsible for symlinking these images in to the
> > top level directory.
>
> Does that mean directly on the top level, or top_level+directory+image? It
> would have to be the later, considering the doc-primer documentation
> mentioned an advantage of having the images in their respective
> directories would allow to use same image names without causing any
> conflict. I am also all for it, but I'm not sure if your solution can deal
> with that.
Excellent point, and one that had completely skipped my mind.
This actually makes things easier, as we need to retain the directory
structure when things are installed.
There are two ways to do this that spring to mind at the moment.
The first is to keep all the information in the top level Makefile, as
it currently is. Have that Makefile contain an IMAGES variable, and make
sure the contents of this variable includes the names of the directories;
IMAGES= hw/foo.gif contrib/bar.gif
and so on. The .sgml files will reference the images with the paths in
them. This is fine, because the HTML files are all put in the top
level directory anyway. The install target can use some magic with the
dirname command on each entry in the IMAGES variable, to ensure that
installation directories exist.
Approach number two is to put a Makefile in each of the subdirectories.
The top level Makefile can then contain a SUBDIR entry for each of these
subdirectories, and we can recurse down in to them calling an 'install'
target in each one.
I don't like this second approach much, as it smacks of making the problem
overcomplicated.
Does that make sense?
In the next week or so I plan on importing Matt Dillon's recent DaemonNews
article in to the articles/ tree (I've already spoken to Matt and the DN
people about this). This will involve images, so can act as a test bed
for image handling in the doc/ tree.
N
--
If you want to imagine the future, imagine a tennis shoe stamping
on a penguin's face forever.
--- with apologies to George Orwell
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000113003947.D8876>