Re: Making autogsdoc a separate package

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 04:00 AM, Adam Fedor wrote:

> Nicola Pero wrote:
> > I'd like to propose to make autogsdoc a separate package from
> > gnustep-base.
> > It has nothing to do with gnustep-base actually, as it's a completely
> > independent documentation tool.
>
> Yes, but it's hard enough to get people to write/read the 
> documentation as it is. Requiring a separate package would make it 
> harder (plus I'd have to maintain a separate package as well 
> (relases,etc)).

I see no problem (other than the maintainability overhead ... a pretty 
strong argument)
with moving autogsdoc and dwrite and make_strings and cvtenc etc etc 
out into a
separate package, but no point either.

Unless ... we upgraded autogsdoc to make it much more customisable (ie 
a general
purpose documentation tool rather than being so much focussed on 
documenting the
base and gui library), and we separated documentation out too.

> We still haven't agreed on whether to build the Documentation in the 
> libraries by default either.

The only argument I'm aware of for not building/installing the 
documentation by default (other
than the argument from personal taste of course) is that it' 
error-prone and looks bad if it
goes wrong.

My view is that this argument is not really valid ... the solution is 
to make documentation
generation reliable rather than to stop doing it.