Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Unifying the behavior of the doc use flag and document it

["Kent Fredric" <kentfredric@gmail.com>]

On 6/25/07, Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> Maybe the flag needs to be renamed/split up to clarify it's meaning,
> >> it's too generic in it's current form (many people enable it blindly and
> >> don't really have any clue what the result is).
> >> Like using USE=apidoc for API documentation, USE=extradoc for extra
> >> user documentation (controlling PDF generation and stuff like that),
> >> USE=rebuild-docs to replace pregenerated documentation with
> >> updated/regenerated versions (like the gtk-doc issue), and so on (don't
> >> know what other use cases there are for USE=doc currently).
> >>
> >> It's a large change, but USE=doc has been a significant problem for
> >> quite a while already (circular deps anyone?)
> >>
> >
> > That does sound like a good idea.
> >
> ++ I was only thinking of the programmer:user difference, since code docs
> tend to pull in a lot of stuff, where as end-user docs are normally
> supplied in an easier format (eg not dox ;) rebuild-docs as a one-shot flag
> is great.
>
> Would there be a way to control what kind of markup is output (assuming a
> package supports it)? For example, to specify that files should be for
> text-only or graphical browser (where both would be the default.) XeTeX --
> PS -- PDF is another along those lines.


I can just feel a USE expansion coming on.

DOC="none pdf txt man ps html info all rebuild" sounds like just a
bunch for starters.

Any votees?


-- 
Kent
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x|
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@gma.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}'
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list