Steve Long wrote: > Kent Fredric wrote: >>> ++ I was only thinking of the programmer:user difference, since code >>> docs tend to pull in a lot of stuff, where as end-user docs are normally >>> supplied in an easier format (eg not dox ;) rebuild-docs as a one-shot >>> flag is great. >>> >>> Would there be a way to control what kind of markup is output (assuming >>> a package supports it)? For example, to specify that files should be for >>> text-only or graphical browser (where both would be the default.) XeTeX >>> -- PS -- PDF is another along those lines. >> >> I can just feel a USE expansion coming on. >> >> DOC="none pdf txt man ps html info all rebuild" sounds like just a >> bunch for starters. >> >> Any votees? >> > Not me, I'm afraid, unless this is the only way to do it.. I agree that > they should only apply to single packages, not across the tree. Although, > if I'm honest, I don't know what that breaks. > Hmm I've been thinking on this a bit more, and I think it does generalise well in user terms. After all, if I want documents in text only format for an installation, it applies to all packages.
What concerned me more was 1) whether it would expand to all by default, as other expansions do (not so major with profiles perhaps?) and 2) being able to override if we do want eg html for a package we develop with. But according to ivanm, you can override with package.use e.g. linguas_en_gb so long as you know the prefix (ie doc_). So consider that a positive vote from me :) Though I must stress I want tex in there ;) Useful tip btw: <ivanm> if you have udept emerged, then doing dep -u <package name> will tell you _all_ the use vars, including the expanded ones -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
