| 1 |
On 6/25/07, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> Maybe the flag needs to be renamed/split up to clarify it's meaning, |
| 4 |
> >> it's too generic in it's current form (many people enable it blindly and |
| 5 |
> >> don't really have any clue what the result is). |
| 6 |
> >> Like using USE=apidoc for API documentation, USE=extradoc for extra |
| 7 |
> >> user documentation (controlling PDF generation and stuff like that), |
| 8 |
> >> USE=rebuild-docs to replace pregenerated documentation with |
| 9 |
> >> updated/regenerated versions (like the gtk-doc issue), and so on (don't |
| 10 |
> >> know what other use cases there are for USE=doc currently). |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> It's a large change, but USE=doc has been a significant problem for |
| 13 |
> >> quite a while already (circular deps anyone?) |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > That does sound like a good idea. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> ++ I was only thinking of the programmer:user difference, since code docs |
| 19 |
> tend to pull in a lot of stuff, where as end-user docs are normally |
| 20 |
> supplied in an easier format (eg not dox ;) rebuild-docs as a one-shot flag |
| 21 |
> is great. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Would there be a way to control what kind of markup is output (assuming a |
| 24 |
> package supports it)? For example, to specify that files should be for |
| 25 |
> text-only or graphical browser (where both would be the default.) XeTeX -- |
| 26 |
> PS -- PDF is another along those lines. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I can just feel a USE expansion coming on. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
DOC="none pdf txt man ps html info all rebuild" sounds like just a |
| 32 |
bunch for starters. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Any votees? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Kent |
| 39 |
ruby -e '[1, 2, 4, 7, 0, 9, 5, 8, 3, 10, 11, 6, 12, 13].each{|x| |
| 40 |
print "enNOSPicAMreil kdrtf@×××.com"[(2*x)..(2*x+1)]}' |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives