On 01/04/2012 07:28 PM, Hanno Meyer-Thurow wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:01:32 +0100
Stephan Bergmann<sberg...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2012 04:35 PM, Hanno Meyer-Thurow wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:57:58 +0100
Stephan Bergmann<sberg...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 01/04/2012 03:58 PM, Hanno Meyer-Thurow wrote:
[...]
Doxygen won't be shipped with LO source like all the other 3rd parties?!
Interesting ...
God no!
Hmm, quite strange to me but o well ...
We do not routinely include copies of build-time tools (compilers, make,
ant, junit, ...).
And what do you mean with "generate the documentation anyway"?
If doxygen is there, you can use it anyway.
Which happens with the implicit --with-doxygen=yes (i.e., pick doxygen
from path) option.
Hmm, that kind of "evil" automagic I do not like ...
What's evil and automagic here? Building LO has a new dependency, and
there is an "emergency" switch (--without-doxygen) people can explicitly
use to build without that prerequisite but with consequential loss of
functionality.
"... an SDK w/o docu makes little sense ..."
Sure, like I said in the beginning, enforce the tool(s) for docu generation;
always(case: odk enabled) and for any SDK (C++, Java, Python, etc ...).
In the sense of keeping it simple.
Yeah, might work just as well to have no additional switch to disable
doxygen, and instead let configure tell people to use --disable-odk if
they have no doxygen. I'm somewhat indifferent here.
"... controlling generation of HTML docu for any SDK stuff via
--with-help
does not look right ..."
Mind the "... or so?!" part of mine. Feel free to use '--with-developer-help' or
something like that. I just did not like the flag named after one tool that is
subject
to change in future and surely for other SDKs.
A question of how much to abstract here, indeed.
Stephan
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
