On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 13:27 -0400, Jonathan Robie wrote: > On 03/17/2010 11:46 AM, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > I know we've been discussing docs recently, but I was extremely > > surprised to see a huge checkin containing tools to "build" the > > documentation. > > > > To put it into perspective, the tools in the qpid/docs directory are > > larger than the entire C++ source code. > > > > I can't understand the necessity for checking in vast blobs of tools > > like this when they are available elsewhere, and even as packages for > > Linux distributions. > > > > Jonathan, what's the rationale here? > > > > I wanted to make it easy for anyone to build the documentation, which > requires a certain version of docbook, docbook-xsl, and Apache FOP > version 0.95 (earlier versions were not anywhere near as good).
IMO that's just not a good enough reason to burden the tree with huge amounts of extraneous stuff. We require all sorts of specific versions of things to build our code. There are probably 10s of libraries we require each with minimum version required. We don't keep a copy of eg the minimum version of java, python, ruby, gcc or boost necessary to build our code in the source tree. Why should the documentation be any different. Andrew > > The alternative would be to have each person who builds install these > things themselves, That is exactly what we do everywhere else in the open source world. Modulo using prepackaged versions of tools from a distribution or the tool supplier. Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
