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

[Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>]

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.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list