Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > Resending with proper line format. > > --- Em dom, 4/11/12, Ken Moffat escreveu: > >> De: Ken Moffat >> Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc >> <blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org> >> Data: Domingo, 4 de Novembro de 2012, 21:10 >> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 02:29:39PM >> -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >>> >>> I purposely have not installed GTK-Doc up to now, and >> it seems to be assumed there by some packages. >> >> Yes, many packages assume gtk-doc. I take the view >> that it is >> easier to just install it. > > Agree. Wish the book would agree too, as it is only mentioned as Optional > in many, e.g. GTK: > > Optional > > Cups-1.6.1, DocBook-utils-0.6.14, gobject-introspection-1.34.1.1 and > GTK-Doc-1.18 > > A note or something could be done. > > It is not "required" by gegl or dependencies, but it is probable it should > be as there is explicit mention to it in the install instructions: > > /usr/share/gtk-doc, in > install -v -m644 docs/*.{css,html} /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl && > install -d -v -m755 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images && > install -v -m644 docs/images/* /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images
Perhaps we should promote gtk-doc to recommended, but I can see where users really don't care about installing the documentation. Some packages will assume it, but others not. The only other solution I can see is to address the issue package by package as needed. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page