Re: --enable-gtk-doc

[Raja R Harinath <harinath cs umn edu>]

Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:
> Raja R Harinath <harinath cs umn edu> writes:
>> Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> > In fact, since 'make distcheck' actually runs 'make dist'
>> > inside the new tarball, it might break make distcheck,
>> > since --enable-gtk-doc is required for 'make dist'
>> 
>> I'm not upto speed on the Makefile's now, but why is this so?
>> I looked at the dist rule, and there was nothing special there that
>> seems to require gtk-doc.  
>> 
>> The only problem I could see is that a maintainer build with
>> --disable-gtk-doc wouldn't have generated any of the files.  Why is
>> 'dist' being penalized for that?  If the maintainer couldn't build the
>> docs, the docs won't be in the tarball.   If you're worried about
>> distcheck, it's better to make the install rules more tolerant.
>
> Well, the reason we require it is:
>
>  - We don't check the SGML/HTML files into CVS, so if you check
>    out and make dist, the dist rule won't work.

You can fix that.  

>  - We don't want to distribute HTML files that are out
>    of date with respect to the sources.

OK.

> We could make the 'make dist' rules work without gtk-doc, but the
> expense of that would be making it easier for us to create messed
> up tarballs, and I'm not sure there is any real benefit.