Duncan Gibson wrote: > Me: >>> The quick guide (and I can commit the changes later this evening) >>> 1. doxygen -w html header.html footer.html customdoxygen.css >>> 2. copy customdoxygen.css to documentation/src >>> 3. in Doxyfile, set HTML_STYLESHEET to customdoxygen.css >>> 4. in customdoxygen.css, change fontsize for h2 and h3 > > Albrecht: >> Okay, that looks good! Although I'm not sure if the generated .css >> file might change with different doxygen versions. We would have to >> check this from time to time. > > All we can do is generate a new customdoxygen.css from time to time > using the command above, and check it against the version in the repo. > Although we could save a 'raw' version in the repo as well to check > against, and even script/automate such a check, it's not worth it IMHO. > >> And, maybe more important, if developers and users would use different >> doxygen versions, what would happen if someone uses a newer doxygen >> version, and the generated output uses other (missing) tags/classes? > > So far doxygen has proven to be very backward compatible, and will use > an old version Doxyfile with a new doxygen. I'm now using doxygen-1.5.9. > As long as nobody regenerates the Doxyfile from scratch with a bleeding > edge version, we should be OK.
... or do doxygen -u. That's why we "fixed" the Doxyfile at doxygen version 1.5.5 a while ago. This is the newest available version under Cygwin, although it would probably be possible to compile one's own. I did some tests yesterday, and I found out that the generated code and the default .css file differ substantially between doxygen versions (you wrote that your version is 1.5.9): $ doxygen --version 1.5.5 $ doxygen -w html h.htm f.htm c.css $ diff -ubw c.css src/html_stylesheet.css | wc -l 711 There are lots of new or changed css classes/attributes in the new file. My suspicion is that we can use a new .css file with older doxygen versions, but not vice versa, because the generated html code wouldn't find the new css definitions in the old .css file. There was not a big difference with 1.5.9 vs. 1.5.6, which is the latest available version on my Linux box (ubuntu 9.0.4). Then I compiled my own 1.5.9 on ubuntu, and after some more package installations this worked very well. I could also generate a usable pdf documentation file :-) However, there are about 190 files that changed names. All these changes were of the form *-source.html -> *_source.html. Although this would normally not b a problem, it is one for updating the web docs :-( I prepared an update by svn-mv'ing all the modified files, and then updating the changed file, but I did'nt check it in yet. It's doable (without removing and recreating the complete doc-1.3 dir), but I wouldn't want to go back one version again. My current conclusion is that we can do the following: (1) leave the Doxygen file at 1.5.5 for now (2) use 1.5.9 for generating the web docs (html and pdf) We should then "fix" this at 1.5.9 for a while, so that the core developers are in sync with their versions, and thus updating the web docs wouldn't have too many diffs. BTW.: the current web docs are created with 1.5.7 (by Fabien). Maybe we should all test and see if we can all upgrade to 1.5.9, or only those who have 1.5.9 should update the web docs. Any thoughts? Albrecht _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
