On 1/23/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/23/06 15:32 CST: > > On 1/23/06, Thomas Trepl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Did anyone saw that problem too? If yes, i would vote for moving doxygen > >>from > >>"optional" to "required" in the libexif chapter. > > I would rather fix the problem instead of forcing folks to install > something that really and truly should be optional.
It's supposed to be optional. They just did a poor job of packaging, and apparently no one tested the installation without Doxygen. > Actually, the installation bombs. However, it is still a problem > we gotta fix. That's what I meant to say: make install bombs. > > This is the hack fix that I came up with that would break the Doxygen build: > > > > cat >> doc/Makefile.in << "EOF" > > install-apidocs: > > install-apidocs-internals: > > EOF > > Seems simple enough. Did you happen to notify anyone upstream? Simple, but I doubt that you can still install the Doxygen files with it if you have it installed. I actually don't know what happens if a target is specified twice in a Makefile. No mention upstream for the same reason no mention here. I was frustrated and trying to get to my ultimate goal of gphoto/f-spot, so I just hacked up some fixes and moved on. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
