From: Jake Voytko (jakevoytko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-26 11:45:11
On 6/25/07, Gennadiy Rozental <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I personally would prefer to keep Boost.Build away from docs generation.
> I shouldn't be required to know/have bjam to do it.
I think that the inherent problem with this is from the view of someone else
generating your documentation when trying out your library (say, for
instance, when you come to the review). When an individual pulls down an
individual library that has ANY kind of documentation that has to be built
(presuming you are not distributing the library with the HTML sources),
you're asking the end-user to go through a two step process instead of a one
step process. This complicates the build process, IMO. The user runs
Boost.Build if sources need to be built for any of the tests, etc, and then
the user goes through a second step to generate the docs.
It seems like we have three options at this point. One, have the end user
make a script that takes care of the library build process and the
documentation build process (and if they have to build sources +
documentation separately enough times, they will). Two, create a different
script that invokes Boost.Build as well as the documentation build, and
third, just stick with bjam and have it all taken care of at once. I
personally think that the third option makes the most sense.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk