Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc
Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > --- Em dom, 4/11/12, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: > >> De: Bruce Dubbs >> Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc >> Para: "BLFS Development List" >> Data: Domingo, 4 de Novembro de 2012, 22:58 > > >> Perhaps we should promote gtk-doc to recommended, but I can >> see where >> users really don't care about installing the >> documentation. Some >> packages will assume it, but others not. The only >> other solution I can >> see is to address the issue package by package as needed. > > Bruce, I think your simple solution is best: "promote gtk-doc to > recommended", with a small parenthesis telling about possible future > install problems, if not installed, or something like that. I went back and looked at my log and it does not indicate the problem you have. From my log: checking whether to build gtk-doc documentation... no ... test -z "/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl" || /bin/mkdir -p "/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl" ... install: creating directory '/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images' 'docs/images/GEGL.png' -> '/usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images/GEGL.png' ... I don't think your issue is caused by gtk-doc. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc
--- Em dom, 4/11/12, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: > De: Bruce Dubbs > Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc > Para: "BLFS Development List" > Data: Domingo, 4 de Novembro de 2012, 22:58 > Perhaps we should promote gtk-doc to recommended, but I can > see where > users really don't care about installing the > documentation. Some > packages will assume it, but others not. The only > other solution I can > see is to address the issue package by package as needed. Bruce, I think your simple solution is best: "promote gtk-doc to recommended", with a small parenthesis telling about possible future install problems, if not installed, or something like that. Thanks for the attention. []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc
Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> Resending with proper line format.
>
> --- Em dom, 4/11/12, Ken Moffat escreveu:
>
>> De: Ken Moffat
>> Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc
>>
>> Data: Domingo, 4 de Novembro de 2012, 21:10
>> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 02:29:39PM
>> -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>>
>>> I purposely have not installed GTK-Doc up to now, and
>> it seems to be assumed there by some packages.
>>
>> Yes, many packages assume gtk-doc. I take the view
>> that it is
>> easier to just install it.
>
> Agree. Wish the book would agree too, as it is only mentioned as Optional
> in many, e.g. GTK:
>
> Optional
>
> Cups-1.6.1, DocBook-utils-0.6.14, gobject-introspection-1.34.1.1 and
> GTK-Doc-1.18
>
> A note or something could be done.
>
> It is not "required" by gegl or dependencies, but it is probable it should
> be as there is explicit mention to it in the install instructions:
>
> /usr/share/gtk-doc, in
> install -v -m644 docs/*.{css,html} /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl &&
> install -d -v -m755 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images &&
> install -v -m644 docs/images/* /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images
Perhaps we should promote gtk-doc to recommended, but I can see where
users really don't care about installing the documentation. Some
packages will assume it, but others not. The only other solution I can
see is to address the issue package by package as needed.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc
Resending with proper line format.
--- Em dom, 4/11/12, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> De: Ken Moffat
> Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc
>
> Data: Domingo, 4 de Novembro de 2012, 21:10
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 02:29:39PM
> -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> >
> > I purposely have not installed GTK-Doc up to now, and
> it seems to be assumed there by some packages.
>
> Yes, many packages assume gtk-doc. I take the view
> that it is
> easier to just install it.
Agree. Wish the book would agree too, as it is only mentioned as Optional
in many, e.g. GTK:
Optional
Cups-1.6.1, DocBook-utils-0.6.14, gobject-introspection-1.34.1.1 and
GTK-Doc-1.18
A note or something could be done.
It is not "required" by gegl or dependencies, but it is probable it should
be as there is explicit mention to it in the install instructions:
/usr/share/gtk-doc, in
install -v -m644 docs/*.{css,html} /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl &&
install -d -v -m755 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images &&
install -v -m644 docs/images/* /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc
--- Em dom, 4/11/12, Ken Moffat escreveu:
> De: Ken Moffat
> Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc
> Para: "BLFS Development List"
> Data: Domingo, 4 de Novembro de 2012, 21:10
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 02:29:39PM
> -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> >
> > I purposely have not installed GTK-Doc up to now, and
> it seems to be assumed there by some packages.
>
> Yes, many packages assume gtk-doc. I take the view
> that it is
> easier to just install it.
Agree. Wish the book would agree too, as it is only mentioned as Optional in
many, e.g. GTK:
Optional
Cups-1.6.1, DocBook-utils-0.6.14, gobject-introspection-1.34.1.1 and
GTK-Doc-1.18
A note or something could be done.
It is not "required" by gegl or dependencies, but it is probable it should be
as there is explicit mention to it in the install instructions:
/usr/share/gtk-doc, in
install -v -m644 docs/*.{css,html} /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl &&
install -d -v -m755 /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images &&
install -v -m644 docs/images/* /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/gegl/images
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] gegl-0.2.0 and (gtk-?)doc
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 02:29:39PM -0800, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > > I purposely have not installed GTK-Doc up to now, and it seems to be assumed > there by some packages. Yes, many packages assume gtk-doc. I take the view that it is easier to just install it. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
