[Libreoffice] Doxygen for C/C++ URE Documentation
sbergman at redhat.com
Wed Jan 4 12:13:01 PST 2012
On 01/04/2012 07:28 PM, Hanno Meyer-Thurow wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:01:32 +0100
> Stephan Bergmann<sbergman at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 01/04/2012 04:35 PM, Hanno Meyer-Thurow wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:57:58 +0100
>>> Stephan Bergmann<sbergman at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 01/04/2012 03:58 PM, Hanno Meyer-Thurow wrote:
>>> Doxygen won't be shipped with LO source like all the other 3rd parties?! Interesting ...
>> God no!
> Hmm, quite strange to me but o well ...
We do not routinely include copies of build-time tools (compilers, make,
ant, junit, ...).
>>>> And what do you mean with "generate the documentation anyway"?
>>> If doxygen is there, you can use it anyway.
>> Which happens with the implicit --with-doxygen=yes (i.e., pick doxygen
>> from path) option.
> Hmm, that kind of "evil" automagic I do not like ...
What's evil and automagic here? Building LO has a new dependency, and
there is an "emergency" switch (--without-doxygen) people can explicitly
use to build without that prerequisite but with consequential loss of
> "... an SDK w/o docu makes little sense ..."
> Sure, like I said in the beginning, enforce the tool(s) for docu generation;
> always(case: odk enabled) and for any SDK (C++, Java, Python, etc ...).
> In the sense of keeping it simple.
Yeah, might work just as well to have no additional switch to disable
doxygen, and instead let configure tell people to use --disable-odk if
they have no doxygen. I'm somewhat indifferent here.
> "... controlling generation of HTML docu for any SDK stuff via --with-help
> does not look right ..."
> Mind the "... or so?!" part of mine. Feel free to use '--with-developer-help' or
> something like that. I just did not like the flag named after one tool that is subject
> to change in future and surely for other SDKs.
A question of how much to abstract here, indeed.
More information about the LibreOffice