Hi Luca, Today at 8:12, Luca Ferretti wrote:
> Using g-d-u 0.3.2 if you don't declare DOC_FIGURES in Makefile.am images > will be ignored. This variable needs the 'full relative' path to all > images you want to install. See following reduced installation logs Shaun already fixed this problem: he called "install-figs" only if DOC_FIGURES was declared, so even if they would be installed by running "make install-figs" manually, there was a small problem that this target was not even called. Naughty, naughty Shaun! > 1. Add "DOC_FIGURES = figures/clocl_applet.png" to Makefile.am and > regenerate Makefile > 1. Add "DOC_FIGURES = figures/window_list_applet.png > figures/window_list_group_applet.png" to Makefile.am and > regenerate Makefile These workarounds should not be needed anymore with CVS g-d-u. > ### Fish ### > > 1. Add "DOC_FIGURES = fish_applet.png" to Makefile.am and > regenerate Makefile > 2. Note the missing figures/ directory in previous declaration You're expecting too much. I mean, it's not hard to do that, but it's kinda wrong, ya know? Figures can also be in any other directory. If you're suggesting that we REQUIRE everybody to use "figures" directory, I don't see why shouldn't we instead REQUIRE everybody to use full path to the figure, and allow pictures like help/C/fish_applet.png help/C/a11y-theme/fish_applet.png help/C/figures/fish_applet.png to be different, yet used in the same document. > IMHO the Fish example should work. As well as you declare only > "basenamed" XML filenames in DOC_INCLUDES, I suppose the DOC_FIGURES > should accept "basenamed" PNG filenames. And it should be the right > synopsis. And you do. "Base" in this context is where $DOC_MODULE.xml resides (i.e. help/C). Figures can be directly inside it as well, and they can be deeper in the hierarchy. > Maybe a DOC_FIGURES_DIR (or DOC_FIGURES_DIRS) variable could be useful, > if images aren't under XX/figures/ (but for example under XX/images). IMHO, you're complicating it too much. You can have them under not-figures/ already, and you just need to mention them one by one. I agree that there's no much point in requiring it to be "figures", but that's only a recommendation. I mean, your suggestion is ok, but it's really not that important. If it was done from scratch, I'd recommend doing it, but I don't see the value in changing it now: either make it simple for yourself by putting all the images in "figures", or put them wherever you wish and make it harder for yourself. Cheers, Danilo _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
