[Xcb] XCB documentation effort status update

[Bart Massey]

Ooh, I've got an idea! Let's add a layer of indirection, so that we
end up with a tool that builds automakefiles!

/me can't believe he said that out loud...

More seriously, the problem with using less-well-known tools, as we've
discovered repeatedly with XCB, is that many developers will walk away
from a project whose tools they aren't comfortable with. Kind of sad,
I think, but there you go.

I guess I'd actually suggest just giving up on the list-of-manpages
being built by/for autotools, and either maintain it manually or build
it with a shell script in a post-step as the manpages are installed.
Or am I missing something obvious?

    Bart

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Michael Stapelberg
<michael+xcb at stapelberg.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Excerpts from Josh Triplett's message of 2011-11-28 23:31:23 +0000:
>> We've had that problem before with the list of extensions, as well.
> Yes, I’ve seen the remark there.
>
>> Ideally we'd like to do some autogeneration based on xcb-proto, except
>> that as far as I can tell, autotools doesn't seem to allow
>> autogeneration of that information; it has to live in the .am file, and
>> configure doesn't even work with the .am files, it works with the
>> generated .in files.  I don't know a good solution, but we definitely
>> need one.
> What about switching away from autotools to a different build system (ensuring
> that it does work on all platforms which we support at the moment)? Is that
> something we could consider or is it off the table? If so, why?
>
> Best regards,
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Xcb mailing list
> Xcb at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xcb