| 1 |
Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Maybe the flag needs to be renamed/split up to clarify it's meaning, |
| 3 |
>> it's too generic in it's current form (many people enable it blindly and |
| 4 |
>> don't really have any clue what the result is). |
| 5 |
>> Like using USE=apidoc for API documentation, USE=extradoc for extra |
| 6 |
>> user documentation (controlling PDF generation and stuff like that), |
| 7 |
>> USE=rebuild-docs to replace pregenerated documentation with |
| 8 |
>> updated/regenerated versions (like the gtk-doc issue), and so on (don't |
| 9 |
>> know what other use cases there are for USE=doc currently). |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> It's a large change, but USE=doc has been a significant problem for |
| 12 |
>> quite a while already (circular deps anyone?) |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> That does sound like a good idea. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
++ I was only thinking of the programmer:user difference, since code docs |
| 18 |
tend to pull in a lot of stuff, where as end-user docs are normally |
| 19 |
supplied in an easier format (eg not dox ;) rebuild-docs as a one-shot flag |
| 20 |
is great. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Would there be a way to control what kind of markup is output (assuming a |
| 23 |
package supports it)? For example, to specify that files should be for |
| 24 |
text-only or graphical browser (where both would be the default.) XeTeX -- |
| 25 |
PS -- PDF is another along those lines. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives