On 6/26/07, Matias Capeletto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/26/07, Rene Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matias Capeletto wrote:
> If I have understand your proposal, you want this layout:
>
> * doc/src/ ( Sources needed to generate the doc )
>
> * doc/src/lib_name/lib_name.xml ( dockbook docs )
> * doc/src/lib_name/lib_name.xsl ( stylesheet )
> * doc/src/lib_name/Jamfile.v2 ( generate the docs inside
> "doc/html/lib_name" )
>
> * doc/src/lib_name/*.qbk ( quickbook source )
> * doc/src/lib_name/example/*.cpp ( used code samples )
Having other things (html, pdf, style, etc) as my last mail, I want to
know what are the pros of this layout for sources instead of the
actual one:
* libs/lib_name/doc/
* doc/lib_name/doc/lib_name.xml ( dockbook docs )
* doc/lib_name/doc/lib_name.xsl ( stylesheet )
* doc/lib_name/doc/Jamfile.v2 ( generate docs inside
"doc/html/lib_name" )
* doc/lib_name/doc/*.qbk ( quickbook source )
* doc/lib_name/example/doc/*.cpp ( or doc/example )
The thing I like about this layout is that everything a library author
maintainer has to modify lives in "libs/lib_name". ( Not counting the
files inside the boost headers directory, because that is a different
business )
I fail to see why the other scheme better separate the sources from
the output (html, pdf, etc ).
Can you comment on this?
Best regards
Matias
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
