Re: gtk-doc cleanification idea / patch

[Damon Chaplin <damon ximian com>]

Peter Williams wrote:
> 
> On 15 May 2001 18:41:08 -0400, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> > ...
> > Though I did have another idea - why not forget about make and do all
> > the build stuff in another gtk-doc perl script (including the dist,
> > install & clean targets). And instead of editing the stuff at the top
> > of the Makefile.am you have a config file.
> >
> > I think that might be a cleaner way of doing it, though its more work
> > than I want to do at the moment.
> >
> 
> I really like the sound of that
> idea. Though maybe make it a shell
> script so you don't need perl.
> Hooking it up to Makefiles would be
> kinda hard, perhaps. Though I suppse
> you could do something like:
> 
>         clean-local:
>                 rm -f `$(srcdir)/gtkdoc-manager.sh
> --cleanfiles`

I wasn't thinking of putting the script in the package. Just leave
it as part of gtk-doc.

So you'd just have a check for gtk-doc in configure.in, and it would
set ENABLE_GTK_DOC just like it does in GTK+ now.

Then in the Makefile.am it would have:

if ENABLE_GTK_DOC

all-local: 
	gtkdoc --command=build --config=my-config-file.txt

clean-local:
	gtkdoc --command=clean --config=my-config-file.txt

install-data-local:
	gtkdoc --command=install --config=my-config-file.txt

dist-hook:
	gtkdoc --command=dist --config=my-config-file.txt

endif


Plus maybe some options to handle srcdir != builddir properly.

Note that I am not an expert in autoconf/automake/make so I may
be missing some major flaws in this approach!

And I'm still not sure it is worth the effort, since the
new configure.in/Makefile.am stuff in GTK+ does pretty much
everything we need.

Damon