Re: Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?
Milan Crha wrote: > On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 09:55 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote: > > If I remember correctly, it’s so that the tarballs can be unpacked to > > give documentation on developer.gnome.org without having to build > > anything. Actually gtk-doc did ship the generated files in the tarballs before developer.gnome.org existed, so when I did that part I reused the files that already existed. > I know there had been quite much buzz about the infrastructure > recently, I hope they won't dislike me, but maybe it would worth to > reconsider this and do build the devel-doc for the developer.gnome.org > site (easier to say, than to do, but maybe it could be extracted from > the Continuous builds?). developer.gnome.org can certainly be changed to grab generated HTML files from any place that would have them. > Also, it seem to me that it's the gtk-doc adding to the tarball that > folder and couple files, thus the place to focus any changes on might > be gtk-doc itself. Also there has been several efforts to build on gobject-introspection and expand the documentation to more languages, Mathieu Duponchelle is working on this; if there's interest we can certainly organize a session on API docs during the GUADEC. Fred ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?
On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 09:55 +0100, Philip Withnall wrote: > If I remember correctly, it’s so that the tarballs can be unpacked to > give documentation on developer.gnome.org without having to build > anything. Hi, I thought it would be to have the documentation available from any system, for which my argument would be: "there is the online documentation at developer.gnome.org, which is better than the one in the tarball", but if it's true what you wrote, then it's the opposite direction relationship. I know there had been quite much buzz about the infrastructure recently, I hope they won't dislike me, but maybe it would worth to reconsider this and do build the devel-doc for the developer.gnome.org site (easier to say, than to do, but maybe it could be extracted from the Continuous builds?). Also, it seem to me that it's the gtk-doc adding to the tarball that folder and couple files, thus the place to focus any changes on might be gtk-doc itself. Bye, Milan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?
On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 10:35 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: > Hello, > while playing with developer documentation I noticed that the source > tarballs (eventually `make dist` result) contain also developer > documentation in generated form. These documentation html/ files are > not small, in case of the glib it makes around 10MB. The thing is > that > when I configure with --enable-gtk-doc, then the shipped html/ files > are regenerated, thus it looks like a waste of space and bandwidth to > distribute them. > > I do not know the history behind it, maybe I just overlooked > something > and it does make sense to distribute that too. That's why I raised it > here. > > It would be interesting to know whether anyone uses the html/ files > without --enable-gtk-doc these days, but I understand it's a hard > question. If I remember correctly, it’s so that the tarballs can be unpacked to give documentation on developer.gnome.org without having to build anything. Philip signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Keep shipping also generated gtk-doc html/ folder?
Hello, while playing with developer documentation I noticed that the source tarballs (eventually `make dist` result) contain also developer documentation in generated form. These documentation html/ files are not small, in case of the glib it makes around 10MB. The thing is that when I configure with --enable-gtk-doc, then the shipped html/ files are regenerated, thus it looks like a waste of space and bandwidth to distribute them. I do not know the history behind it, maybe I just overlooked something and it does make sense to distribute that too. That's why I raised it here. It would be interesting to know whether anyone uses the html/ files without --enable-gtk-doc these days, but I understand it's a hard question. Thanks and bye, Milan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
