Re: [Libreoffice] Doxygen for C/C++ URE Documentation

On 01/04/2012 07:28 PM, Hanno Meyer-Thurow wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:01:32 +0100
> Stephan Bergmann<sbergman@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@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 
functionality.

>         "... 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.

Stephan