Re: [boost] [1.56] Sorry but no PDF doc build (build script has been broken)

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.56] Sorry but no PDF doc build (build script has been broken)
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-08-11 09:44:30

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Niall Douglas
> Sent: 11 August 2014 12:59
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [1.56] Sorry but no PDF doc build (build script has been
broken)
> 
> On 11 Aug 2014 at 12:24, John Maddock wrote:
> 
> > >> Sorry folks, but as things stand there will be no PDF build of the
> > >> docs for 1.56 as the build script appears to be hopelessly broken
> > >> :-(
> > [snip]
> > Which so freaking inscrutable that I'm pretty sure it's a Japanese
> > translation of Klingon.

Ah - so that's why I can never understand bjam diagnostic output!

Neither my Klingon nor Japanese is up to it.
 
> I did however eventually get PDF docs working for proposed Boost.AFIO and
which
> you can witness at
> https://ci.nedprod.com/view/All/job/Boost.AFIO%20Build%20Documentation
> %20PDF/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/boost-local/bin.v2/libs/afio/doc/g
> cc-4.6/debug/afio.pdf. Getting docs working correctly was the hardest part of
the
> modularisation effort :(

Nice (but I note a very curious effect of 'fl' and 'fi' being elided into a bold
'f' - as in fags  for flags...)

Otherwise, I have had no problems with building pdf docs for several embryonic
libraries,
but I added stuff to the jamfile,
so I suspect that John is correct in saying that changes to *all* the docs
jamfiles will be needed.

I personally like the PDF versions - because you can search through the 'whole'
document, something you can't do beyond a single HTML pages.

GIT has strengths, but here it is just getting in the way?

:-)

Paul

PS Tell me if I can help.

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]