Re: Proposal: Abandoning monolithic Boost documentation.

From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-04-23 12:03:57

On 23/04/2025 10:19, Дмитрий Архипов via Boost wrote:
> 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).

Those PDF considerations were probably all added by me when I did care 
about PDF's. ;)

John.