Hi, I'm using the following patch to cross build kdoctools for windows
https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:rhabacker:branches:windows:mingw:win32:KF536/mingw32-kdoctools/0001-Generate-xml-files-containing-relative-pathes-to-dtd.patch?expand=1 It requires only a little platform specific code - may be it helps. Ralf Am 22.08.2017 um 22:18 schrieb Luigi Toscano: > Harald Sitter wrote: >> Ahoy ahoy >> >> I've just stumbled upon a rather puzzling situation with kdoctools. It >> has code branching to turn its assets relocatable [1] (i.e. resolve >> paths relative rather than hardcode their location). Now the weird bit >> about this is that it is only used on windows. > Hi, > > it's not so puzzling: the main code assume a fixed position for the docbook > resources (which has been for long the case, if we consider them system > libraries). The windows code has been added (long time ago, and thanks to the > windows people for that!) as special case because the path required when > building and the path required when installing are a bit different. > > See for reference when it was introduced: > https://commits.kde.org/kdelibs/38b5e7f937b5d2c291c5b20a0c8648632084dde5 > > And this revision when I tried to simplify it: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120324/ > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=293610 > >> The reason this puzzles me is that the relocatable code for Windows >> would work just fine for Linux and OSX, from what I can tell there is >> no real downside to it besides the additional code, which we need >> anyway. On the other hand, the conditional treatment of Windows gives >> the Windows code branch substantially less implicit run exposure (i.e. >> most devs/testers aren't on Windows, so fewer people build the >> relevant if-branch). >> >> With that in mind: how about we drop the harcoding code path and make >> the Windows code path the default and have kdoctools assets always be >> relocatable? > No problem with relocatable code, in general, but my personal problem with > that code is that I have to rethink every time what it's doing and think twice > when I had to change it (as I did now with the review above), because of the > way it works. It may be a limitation of mine, but is there some way to make > what it's trying to do in a more simple way? > > Ciao