Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:05:49 -0600 (CST) From: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net> To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: including generated documentation with source Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.02.1302111751360.27181@t1.m.reedmedia.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I help maintain documentation (man pages, guides in html, pdf, and plain text, and api/developer docs in html). The original source of the docs is in docbook or doxygen. I'd prefer not to include the generated docs in the source tree (git repo) because slight differences in the documentation tool chains on each developer's system. But I also don't want the end-user to have to install all the many software dependencies for providing the documentation end results so I include them in my "make dist" tarballs. (I am using autoconf/automake framework.) Currently I use a ./configure switch --enable-generate-docs. If set, configure will check for some dependencies and the generated Makefiles will have targets for generating the docs. But if not set, the make targets will generate dummy doc files. The dummy doc files idea I got from the pango project, but I think now it is a poor idea. Maybe I should just force the additional dependencies for anyone building my software, or maybe force this for a "make dist" only. Or maybe I should go back to just keeping the generated docs in the git repo -- I could require (or automate this) that checkins only come from a dedicated documentation build system so that it is consistent. Does anyone have any advice or pointers to source code examples of how I can best handle providing generated docs with my tarball releases? (I'd prefer to not change from docbook to simpler format.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.NEB.2.02.1302111751360.27181>