Vincent Béron wrote:
This one I'm not sure which one is better. So I include both patches,
but only one should be applied.
Functionnally, both produce the exact same html files, although the fix1
creates (by the system's db2html) a directory with images (which are
unused).
So I'd tend to go with fix2.
Please comment, and I'll post the good one to wine-patches.
Vincent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index: wine/documentation/Makefile.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/documentation/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -r1.24 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in 17 Sep 2002 18:44:46 -0000 1.24
+++ Makefile.in 9 Nov 2002 00:18:33 -0000
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
.PHONY: everything doc html pdf ps
$(BOOKNAME)/index.html: $(BOOK_SRCS)
- $(DB2HTML) $(BOOKNAME).sgml
+ $(DB2HTML) -d ./default.dsl $(BOOKNAME).sgml
$(BOOKNAME).pdf: $(BOOK_SRCS)
db2pdf -d ./print.dsl $(BOOKNAME).sgml > /dev/null
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index: wine/documentation/Makefile.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/wine/wine/documentation/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -r1.24 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in 17 Sep 2002 18:44:46 -0000 1.24
+++ Makefile.in 9 Nov 2002 00:19:34 -0000
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
VPATH = @srcdir@
MODULE = none
BOOKNAME = wine-doc
-DB2HTML = db2html
+DB2HTML = ./db2html-winehq
EXTRASUBDIRS = samples status
I would go with patch 2 myself. Cleaner is better.
-- Tony Lambregts
