Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Resending with proper line format.
>
> --- Em dom, 4/11/12, Ken Moffat escreveu:
>
>> De: Ken Moffat
>> Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc
>> <blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org>
>> Data: Domingo, 4 de Novembro de 2012, 21:10
>> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 02:29:39PM
>> -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>>
>>> I purposely have not installed GTK-Doc up to now, and
>> it seems to be assumed there by some packages.
>>
>> Yes, many packages assume gtk-doc. I take the view
>> that it is
>> easier to just install it.
>
> Agree. Wish the book would agree too, as it is only mentioned as Optional
> in many, e.g. GTK:
>
> Optional
>
> Cups-1.6.1, DocBook-utils-0.6.14, gobject-introspection-1.34.1.1 and
> GTK-Doc-1.18
>
> A note or something could be done.
>
> It is not "required" by gegl or dependencies, but it is probable it should
> be as there is explicit mention to it in the install instructions:
>
> /usr/share/gtk-doc, in
> install -v -m644 docs/*.{css,html} /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl &&
> install -d -v -m755 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images &&
> install -v -m644 docs/images/* /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images
Perhaps we should promote gtk-doc to recommended, but I can see where
users really don't care about installing the documentation. Some
packages will assume it, but others not. The only other solution I can
see is to address the issue package by package as needed.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
