Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:27:05 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, jack <jack@germanium.xtalwind.net>, current@freebsd.org, asami@freebsd.org, doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Docs blows up make release Message-ID: <16783.935616425@localhost> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:38:19 BST." <19990825123819.A2177@kilt.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Just an update on that. I've been working on this with Jack O'Neill, and > if the reports are favourable I'll have one small patch to > src/release/Makefile and one small patch to doc/*/Makefile to go in some > time in the next 48 hours or so which should get release builds working. Great, sounds good. > Note that this won't include any fixes to teach sysinstall about the new > paths under /usr/share/doc/, although you should have seen a patch I sent > you about that by now. Hmm, I still have 3000 mails I'm going through here... sysinstall required changes? I thought everything was still under /usr/share/doc, or are the subdirs different now? > This assumes that the documentation is also listed in the ports tree. > > I don't think this is a great idea -- more specifically, I don't think > this is a great idea as the primary mechanism for making packages of > the documentation. I've got no problems with it being another way to > make doc packages. Hmmm. How else were you thinking of making "doc packages" then - wasn't that the whole project you were working on? > This makes the ports tree have a dependency on the doc tree. I don't think > this dependency should be there. It's bad enough that the src/ tree > depends on doc/ (and the reason I want the documentation available as > packages is to remove this dependency), having ports depend on the doc tree > as well just means that when things go out of sync in doc for a while I get > both you and Satoshi complaining at me, instead of just you :-) Erm, I think the ports tree is pretty darn loose about "dependencies" since they're easily updated. Consider, for example, the fact that some ports are dependent on the organization of binary tarballs over at Netscape, or depend on WordPerfect's linux distribution RPM. Those are some pretty heavy deps, and depending on something in our own doc tree is certainly no worse. :) > Putting the package building rules in the doc/ Makefiles also (and this > is just my personal opinion) makes it easier for people to see how the > documentation packages are built. The ports Makefile structure is a > marvel, but it contains a lot of code that's not necessary for building > documentation packages (the "automagically add man pages to the PLIST > i" code, for example) that makes it more difficult for the interested > learner to browse and understand what's going on. Now this is a point which is more germin. So, you figure on making a similar sort of "package" target under doc? I guess it really doesn't matter where these things live, as long as it's still automated.. - Jordan 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?16783.935616425>