|
|
Boost Docs : |
From: Matias Capeletto (matias.capeletto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-03 22:39:01
On 6/26/07, Matias Capeletto <matias.capeletto_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 6/26/07, Matias Capeletto <matias.capeletto_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 6/26/07, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > Matias Capeletto wrote:
> > If I have understand your proposal, you want this layout:
> >
> > * doc/src/ ( Sources needed to generate the doc )
> >
> > * doc/src/lib_name/lib_name.xml ( dockbook docs )
> > * doc/src/lib_name/lib_name.xsl ( stylesheet )
> > * doc/src/lib_name/Jamfile.v2 ( generate the docs inside
> > "doc/html/lib_name" )
> >
> > * doc/src/lib_name/*.qbk ( quickbook source )
> > * doc/src/lib_name/example/*.cpp ( used code samples )
>
> Having other things (html, pdf, style, etc) as my last mail, I want to
> know what are the pros of this layout for sources instead of the
> actual one:
>
> * libs/lib_name/doc/
>
> * doc/lib_name/doc/lib_name.xml ( dockbook docs )
> * doc/lib_name/doc/lib_name.xsl ( stylesheet )
> * doc/lib_name/doc/Jamfile.v2 ( generate docs inside
> "doc/html/lib_name" )
>
> * doc/lib_name/doc/*.qbk ( quickbook source )
> * doc/lib_name/example/doc/*.cpp ( or doc/example )
>
> The thing I like about this layout is that everything a library author
> maintainer has to modify lives in "libs/lib_name". ( Not counting the
> files inside the boost headers directory, because that is a different
> business )
> I fail to see why the other scheme better separate the sources from
> the output (html, pdf, etc ).
> Can you comment on this?
Rene is a very busy at the moment. I will really miss his advice here.
Can others give us feedback about this subject?
Thanks!
Best regards
Matias