On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:42:32PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:30:58 +0200, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:27:06PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > > > Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 08:47:22PM +0200, Janne Grunau wrote: > > > >> On 2012-08-11 20:39:06 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote: > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:51:33AM +0200, Janne Grunau wrote: > > > >> > > On 2012-08-09 03:31:27 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote: > > > >> > > > The comments in non-library code never apply to code that is used > > > >> > > > outside of the file and thus never need to be in Doxygen format. > > > >> > > > --- a/Doxyfile > > > >> > > > +++ b/Doxyfile > > > >> > > > @@ -616,7 +616,11 @@ RECURSIVE = YES > > > >> > > > # excluded from the INPUT source files. This way you can easily > > > >> > > > exclude a > > > >> > > > # subdirectory from a directory tree whose root is specified > > > >> > > > with the INPUT tag. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -EXCLUDE = > > > >> > > > +EXCLUDE = compat > > > >> > > > \ > > > >> > > > + doc > > > >> > > > \ > > > >> > > > + presets > > > >> > > > \ > > > >> > > > + tests > > > >> > > > \ > > > >> > > > + tools > > > >> > > > \ > > > >> > > > > > >> > > is there anything in '.' which would have useful Doxygen comments? > > > >> > > Specifying the library dirs explicitly as search path makes imho > > > >> > > more > > > >> > > sense than excluding everything else. > > > >> > > > > >> > avconv.c > > > >> > avconv_filter.c > > > >> > avconv.h > > > >> > avconv_opt.c > > > >> > avplay.c > > > >> > avserver.c > > > >> > cmdutils.c > > > >> > cmdutils.h > > > >> > > > >> and which useful doxygen comments have those files? I've only looked at > > > >> avconv.c and couldn't spot any. > > > > > > > > Look at cmdutils.h, it is quite extensively documented. > > > > > > Perhaps, but it's of no interest to API users. > > > > Somebody added Doxygen there for a reason; it would be silly not to > > extract it. If you believe otherwise, send a patch to remove the > > Doxygen comments from that file. > > > > Can we leave the pros and cons of external/internal API documentation > > out of the implementation of this patch? Doxygen generation will > > remain broken until this patch is applied. > > Can you stop ignoring me when I attempt to start a discussion about this? > Doxygen generation will remain broken until this issue is fixed, but it can be > fixed through other ways than this.
True, but this patch fixes Doxygen generation without changing policy about which parts of libav Doxygen documentation is extracted from. Can we please apply this, fix the build, and settle the policy issue separately? Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
