Re: Proposal: Abandoning monolithic Boost documentation.

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-04-23 09:47:41

Дмитрий Архипов:
> 
> ср, 23 апр. 2025 г. в 12:01, John Maddock via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
> > As the person who used to generate those PDF's, I can tall you it was
> > a right pain to do, plus there seemed to be very few downloads... that
> > might be a chicken and egg situation though.  If it was all automated
> > and run on CI that might make it viable again I guess.
> >
> > And yes, by all means modularize the docs, I don't think there were
> > ever that many libraries in the old "monolithic" build anyway?
> 
> I recently collected some info on the docs setups for Boost libraries:
> https://disk.yandex.ru/i/f4fRfsZFOqX4TA
> 
> 45 libraries (out of 152) use integrated docs. 4 of those actually don't even use
> Quickbook, their docs are written in BoostBook XML!
> 120 libraries' docs can be built as PDFs, of those 92 have explicit
> considerations for PDF format (which implies their maintainers at one point
> cared enough about PDF). 4 libraries have pre-generated docs with PDF, that
> is they have PDF files committed.

Asciidoctor single page may not be especially liked, but it does work as a PDF.

I'm not sure anyone uses this though, even though I try to make sure it works.