TJ:
> I've just noticed that all the standalone docs are built as individual
> packages with their own configure.ac and bootstrap files. Is there a
> reason for that?
I likely asked Norman. There was also the question of the time involved
especially dealing with the trickier graphics, and the SGs and SCs were
top priority as far as user manuals. I didn't want to do them all at
once. In your scheme manuals could readily be added give a Makefile.am
and a modification to the package build files.
> I think it would be easier to handle if we had a single
> bootstrap/configure.ac/Makefile.am
Yes that would be an improvement. I'm happy to have a blitz on this,
but my updates won't come in until September.
> If there is a good reason for it I can stick with it, else I'll have a
> look at simplifying things.
Please don't be too long. I don't want to be here to 5:30 this week.
> Do you want to split the work? I'll take on the SUG and SG.
Interesting division of labour given that I've done most if not all of
the SGs. I was going to do the lot. If you can devise a way of
arriving there more quickly by means of a docs package, then that's a
fair deal.
> We probably should tweak the build to include a pdf
PDFs are better for searching. That's presumably a Starconf change so
that it applies to package documents too.
BTW I first raised the matter of the missing documents on 2004 July 15.
Malcolm
|