GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> I just started to look at doxygen.
>
> A nice tool but may require many
> extras stuff (qt-2.1.0), tetex 1.0...
>
> The current RPM build of doxygen failed about
> missing command moc (a qt devel tool).
>
> Did you succeed build doxygen under MacOs X ?
>
> We'll have to see if all commiters (I think here
> at Mike Anderson and JF Clere) could use it on
> their build hosts...
Well I am not willing to change somethings that works!
APR is using SCANDOC. SCANDOC uses PERL and does not mean extra porting work for
me.
Changing to DOXYGEN sounds bad for me because:
- It is written C it have to will to port to the platfroms we want to support.
(And that work does not looks easy).
- Why changing a tool that works fine?
- Why using a different documentation tool in each ASF project?
I would more happy using a JAVA written tool than a C/C++ one.
Cheers
Jean-frederic
>
> -
> Henri Gomez ___[_]____
> EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (. .)
> PGP KEY : 697ECEDD ...oOOo..(_)..oOOo...
> PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Pier P. Fumagalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 8:22 PM
> >To: tomcat dev jakarta.apache.org
> >Subject: [JTC] Use of DOXYGEN instead of SCANDOC...
> >
> >
> >What do you think about DOXYGEN
> ><http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/>?
> >I'm thinking about changing from SCANDOC to DOXYGEN for the
> >automatically
> >generated documentation from C code...
> >
> > Pier
> >
